WHAT ARE WE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN?

I don’t know how many of my friends, acquaintances and/or readers keep up with the news of the day. I suspect most of you. People who surf the web and access web pages such as mine are, I think, curious and likely news challenged. Thus, my comments about a news item of yesterday will come as no surprise. I was appalled by the news report of the young boy who was attacked on a school bus and worse, by the report that it took the father two weeks to gain access to the video of the bus attack. I could not believe that the school, the police and the bus driver would be so derelict in their responsibilities. It is amazing to me that our society has come to a point where we cannot confront issues of violence without “political correctness”.

Several months ago my brother in law, a bus driver for a school in Cottonwood, Arizona, punished a child who was misbehaving on his bus. He was terminated because he did not follow the school’s guidelines in dispensing punishment for a clear act of disobedience. My brother in law is a wonderful person, a strong disciplinarian but he has a unique way of relating to children. As I understand it, his offense was requiring the offending child to sit in an appointed seat away from his friends. If our schools and their staff cannot or will not permit simple ground rules of structure, how can we expect our children to grow up respecting the law? Isn’t it time we revisit our guidelines for building moral character and reviewed what constitutes right or wrong? Certainly, parents should take the lead, but should we not also support those in whose care we entrust our children and give them a broad foundation for the exercise of discipline?

I remember as a child learning first hand that any disciplinary action at school would be met with equal or greater discipline from my parents. My parents always supported the teacher at least insofar as I was ever to know. What, if any, discussions that may have been conducted outside of my hearing range, I never knew and for that, I am glad. I was sent to school to learn and my teachers were empowered to teach me discipline and to educate me. That, in my opinion, is as it should be. On the other hand, our teachers in those days knew right from wrong but alas, that should be a subject for a future dissertation.

The message that follows was forwarded to me. Although I do not know the person who wrote this and cannot personally attest to the events that he writes about, I believe the content of this letter is true. We just returned from three months in Mexico. We learned first hand as a guest in Mexico that Mexico requires and in fact demands far more from the US citizens crossing their border than we seem to demand from theirs. My husband and I believe that a guest worker program is needed but not at the risk of compromising the security of our country. We want SAFE borders. No more illegals of any nationality and our laws must be enforced fairly and in blind justice. Those who are here illegally must be required to go through the legal apparatus for gaining access to our country and ultimately, if they desire and have met our requirements, citizenship. No one should be granted citizenship who is not willing to abide by our laws and that means the laws that were in effect when they came across the border. People who hire illegals must be punished and people who deal in illegal entry should be punished. It is time our existing laws were enforced. At leat that is the way I see it.

The following message was forwarded to me. I urge you to read it.



Subject: U S CITIZENS WORKING IN MEXICO



The following from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City.



I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me.

2. Marriage certificate.

3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.

4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.

5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.

6. A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."

7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write.

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The companies Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.

Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and If any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

IMMIGRATION Monday, April 24, 2006

Our politicians return to Washington today, hopefully to work. That, of course, remains to be seen. Actually, they will return to Washington to continue that which they do best. Point out the sins and errors of the other party and try to convince all of us that they are "worthy" of our support. Although immigration and energy are the number one domestic issues, realistically, one cannot expect that anything will get done. Our politicians are too busy trying to preserve themselves.

I support immigration. The fact that people from other countries want to come to our country and reap the benefits of a free society is, in my opinion, a tribute to our way of life and their ambition, character and self esteem. I do think that it is important for them to understand that we will respect their background, their culture and their belief but they should be prepared to live by and under our law.

That said, I believe that we must exercise care that those who come to our country come for the right reason, to reap the benefits of free enterprise and not to take advantage of our country and its humane charity or destroy it and all for which it stands. Our laws must protect those who want to work while preserving our freedoms and commitment to the rule of law. Every person who crosses the border should do so legally and and no person who has entered this country illegally should be given preferential treatment.

Those illegals who are here now should not be departed en mass. There should be a program implemented that would permit those who are here now to register and apply for a guest worker or appropriately identified program for short term legal status. A program should be implemented that would investigate each applicant and, if the applicant is found worthy, they would be issued a "guest worker" permit. A date certain should be established to accomplish this goal and anyone who is in this country illegally and has not complied with the process by that date, would be subject to deportation.

In my vision, once the illegals have complied with the guest worker registration they would be eligible to apply for citizenship under already established law and the guidelines that apply to all applicants for immigration and citizenship. No one would be given a free ride, no one would be exempt from our laws and no one would gain access to citizenship except by following our established laws. The guest worker permit could be extended by application for extension but it would not be renewed automatically. Anyone who failed to file for extension of their work status upon expiration of their guest worker status, would be subject to immediate deportation. No person, country of origin or race should be an exception.

In my opinion, no great new immigration law needs to be passed. Existing law needs to be clarified, amended to provide a "path" (but not a promise) for illegals to become legal and existing laws must be enforced.

WIFI OR NOT TO WIFI

The New Year has begun and there is every hope for a great year in spite of the latest news of the loss of 12 coal miners in West Virginia. However, this seems a good time to address a pet peeve of mine that continues to grow more frustrating with each attempt at communication utilizing wireless access to the net.

I have had several opportunities to use the WIFI technology as my access to the “web” and each time I am frustrated by the ongoing lack of reliability of WIFI as a provider for access to the web. It is as squirrely as a used car salesman’s veracity. It is not, in my opinion, a reliable resource that should be expected to provide reliable service – at least I have not found this to be so. I use WIFI from my local area network at home and if I am not sitting in close proximity to my system link, my transmission and access capability is squirrely. After many attempts and effort at utilizing the WIFI offerings that are becoming more prevalent and availabile, I have concluded that WIFI is a developing resource that holds great promise. I have also concluded that the charges for access to the web via WIFI providers exceed its actual value. In my opinion, more development, research and reliability needs to be generated by the providers of this service before it will become a viable resource for communication.

This “blog” will be posted via WIFI from Mexico, in spite of several attempts to gain enough transmission capacity to post it to the web. I will go to the source of the WIFI server and from there, ultimately get on line. From an area within the supposed transmission zone, it is a dud. I love the concept, I am frustrated with the actual performance. Why do our technical “nerds” continue to release and “hype” technology that is not yet perfected? WIFI in my opinion is such a technology.

ON REFLECTION

We in California have spoken. The electorate has rejected any rationale that would return California’s spending practices to a resemblance of sanity. In California’s recent election process that featured several propositions that would have returned California to a beginning for sane dialogue, truth was rejected. The false claims, lies and innuendos of the purveyors of incompetence were embraced by the majority. The liberals and the unions demonized the Governor and the electorate chose the devil of misconception. The lobbyists and the union for the public “trough” won. Somehow, the masses do not seem capable of putting two and two together or thinking for themselves. They must be told how to think and like lambs to the slaughter, they go to the polls and vote the “message”.

There seems to be an idea that unlimited money and resources should be available for those who serve the public cause and that the wealthy should pay for the free spending of the bureaucrats. What will happen when there are no wealthy purses to rob? Will the unions and the bureaucrats suffer? Perhaps they think they shall somehow be immune?

Our California populace would have us go bankrupt as a State rather than accept responsibility for correcting our own ills. The State reflects a population of brain power lost. When will it all end?

CALIFORNIA'S SPECIAL ELECTION

California is at it again. On November 8 the citizens of California will once again have an opportunity to apply their “good citizenship” and vote in a special election. They will cast their ballot for or against the solutions the Governator, who was elected to replace the recalled Gray Dravis, and his staff have devised to solve the State’s fiscal crises. These are solutions that the governator’s “brain chain” believes will help solve some of the ongoing issues that confront the citizens of this good State. To hear the opponents of these issues lament against the injustice of these proposals one would believe that the Governator would take food from a baby’s mouth, turn our children into the illiterate masses and reduce the public servants who are union members into homeless artifacts from the dark ages.

California has long been “soft” on its public servants who feed at the public trough. Years ago when I was young – sounds like a song from long ago – I was told that the pay scale for public service was considerably below that of private business but that the retirement, health and other fringe benefits were intended to make up for that lack of real compensation. As the years have rolled by, unions have been formed and higher pay benefits have been negotiated until now it is more lucrative to work in the public sector than it is to own ones own business never mind, work in the private sector. Indeed, free enterprise as we once knew it is in jeopardy in my opinion and, increasingly, the public sector seems to be the "opportunity of first resort".

Suddenly, we are beginning to fiscally recognize that the taxpayers can no longer bear the burden of out of control spending and we must now come to grips with it. We cannot continue to meet the ever increasing demands of our public sector employees. The Governator has come up with a plan to solve some of these issues. As I read the propositions, I find myself wondering how any citizen could vote against these proposals and yet, because of the heavy spending by the public sector employee unions and organizations directly affected by these reasonable and much needed proposals, these propositions appear to be in trouble.

These Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statues are as follows:

Proposition 73 amends California Constitution defining and prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parents/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Mandates reporting requirements. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
This proposition will not affect California’s solvency one way or another but it is, in my opinion, a good proposal. As a “seasoned” parent who can only think logically on this subject I will vote for this amendment. I do not believe that any parent can leave such a decision to a minor child or to an otherwise impartial and emotionally detached third party. There are several reasons for my support of this proposition and none of them are related to any religious or political beliefs. One, abortions, like any medical procedure, can and do go wrong and may result in severe complications or death, though admittedly death is rare. Would any parent in their right mind want to delegate responsibility for such a decision to their child or any impartial third party? Imagine as a parent, the burden of learning too late that your child had undergone an abortion and in the process, lost or endangered their life. Two, I believe that the decision to have an abortion involves significant risk to the mental psyche and should be entered into only after careful counseling and precautions as to the possible long term ramifications of the decision; Three, Abortion is not a decision that should be made by one person. It is a decision that should be made within the family circles of both responsible parties and the long term responsibilities fully reviewed. Four, any delegation of the parental responsibility seems to me to be an encouragement for people to avoid yet another of their responsibilities. Parental responsibilities are not easy issues. They are real and cannot and should not be delegated. We do no one a favor when we allow a minor, who is not old enough to otherwise make other life threatening independent decisions, to decide whether the pregnancy that has befallen them is one that they will accept as a burden or as a blessing. Forty eight hours is a small price to pay for “thought”.

Proposition 74 - Public School Teachers - Waiting Period for permanent status. Dismissal. Initiative Status. Increases probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
At a time when we are trying to increase the caliber of our teaching staff, when we need to improve our educational system, when we have an ever increasing financial burden upon the system, this seems to me to be a step forward in trying to get a handle on California’s failing educational system. For too long, the public sector work force has been content to accept mediocre performance in the name of public trust. Enough is enough and the merits of this initiative speaks to an attempt to get our costs under control at the same time it demands greater oversight and more credible performance before tenure. This proposition would, in my opinion, elevate a teaching career to a higher status and promote respect and admiration for those who justly earn tenure.

Proposition 75 Public Employees Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.
Why is there such a willingness by labor unions and organizations in the public sector to embrace campaign financing laws and oversight in political “lobbying” from the private sector and yet they fight this legislation with such vindictive determination? I personally embrace any attempt to reduce the “appearance” of a “quid pro quo” in anything political and union ads seeking to foster their own ideas and positions meets that criteria. The Unions are actively seeking to influence another person's vote and perhaps, that is okay if all of the members have agreed to that action. However, no union funds should be used for any thing not specifically authorized by its rank and file members. The use of money entrusted to the Union by its membership without the prior consent of its members is, in my opinion, obscene. I do not understand how any self respecting union member, public servant or thinking individual would oppose this simple proposal. I am very disappointed with the strong opposition to this proposal. As a former union member I valued my independence of political thought and guarded the sanctity of my vote. I feel that should be available to everyone, union member or not.

Proposition 76 - Provides for State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This proposition limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements. (Proposition 98). Permits Governor, under specified circumstances to reduce budget appropriations of Governor’s choosing.
As I understand it, this measure would subject school and community college spending to annual budget decisions and be less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee. The Governor would be granted new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. I am in favor of this Proposition. It is time California begin to live within its means and this Proposition puts in place a vehicle whereby spending cuts can be mandated by the Governor. This kind of oversight is long over due. It is time that California adopted some “fiscal restraint”.

I will review Propositions 77 - 80 in a subsequent diatribe. In the meantime, I heartily recommend a yes vote on the aforementioned propositions. I believe strongly that if these propositions are not passed, the good citizens of California can be assured that California’s out of control spending will continue and I do not see how any medium income family will be able to afford to live here. I personally believe defeat of these propositions will be one more step toward a Class society in our State. If these propositions are rejected, the solutions that will be required will be a rude awakening for a lot of “heads in the sand”. We will indeed approach a society of "haves or have nots", in my opinion. There will be no room for anything in between.

HARRIET MIERS - TO BE OR NOT TO BE

I have just completed reading several reports regarding the criticism surrounding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I personally am outraged at the tenor and tone of the furor from those conservatives with whom I agree more frequently than not. This time,I think they sound like “wounded bats” in an asylum belfry. A Washington Post report stated “White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism”", a comment that according to the Post drew complaints from participants at a briefing Gillespie conducted. I tend to think that Gillespie may have it right. Let’s face it – Washington DC – conservative or liberal -- reflects a political elitism that is barely a notch above an "old boys club" from the 50's. Those of us who support one or the other are just pawns in their game. Perhaps they truly believe they are all knowing, omnipotent in purity of thought and most able to determine what is best for the rest of us.

I read columnist George Wills’ comments in which he, according to the Post, "decried the choice as a diversity pick without any evidence that Miers has the expertise and intellectual firepower necessary for the high court". Ann Coulter laments that Miers is incompetent and her education at Southern Methodist University “too lacking” to sit among the “high and mighty” elitist graduates of the great Universities. I am disappointed at both of these “conservative mouth pieces”.

Apparently the conservative block is particularly upset because Bush did not consult with them and engage in an all out battle with the Democrats to put someone whose views they wish to see on the Court and that the Democrats vowed to fight. The last I heard, every person has one vote and each vote counts equally. The President did not consult me and I don’t think anyone would find that particularly surprising. However, I represent one vote just as those who now cry foul that they were not consulted. Since I do not control a large “cache” of votes, I am not a big contributor to the party -- I think I gave less than $25.00 to the Bush campaign in 2004 – neither Bush nor his party owes me anything. It is people like me who Mr. Bush must represent. He is responsible for representing all of us and not a single group of people. That, I believe, is what he has tried to do.

The last time I studied the process, It looked to me as if the political activists among us support those who represent their goals. That is certainly why I voted for George Bush. I certainly could not imagine voting for John Kerry. That said, I await the hearing process to determine whether Harriet Miers can stand up to the questions from the Committee. They are now charged with the responsibility for examining her qualities, evaluating her competence and measuring her ability to fairly, honestly and diligently apply the law and uphold the Constitution. Why should that be so difficult or require an elitist degree from Harvard or Yale? I believe the conservative right are wrong to draw conclusions before they have heard Ms. Mier's testimony and had an opportunity to observe for themselves her competence or incompetence, as the case may be. It is not enough to call someone dumb, incompetent or unqualified based on surmised facts. That seems to me unamerican. Harriet Miers deserves a hearing and I, for one, think she is a gutsy lady to take the heat and accept the challenge. The conservatives who are “ranting” about this nomination are no better than the “liberals” who voted against John Roberts. They are all cross eyed.

E MAIL TO A FRIEND

An acquaintance from across the pond recently forwarded to me a power point document in which the creator of the presentation attempts to impart the view that the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks were acts committed by our own government. I am appalled that any such accusations would be made but then I have a tendency to want to look at the World through square glasses of rosy color. I thought this would be a good place to share my response amended to correct some grammatical and spelling errors. (Not all mind you).


“Subject: 9/11 PRESENTATION

This is the first time I have seen that presentation but I have heard discussions related to the claims contained therein numerous times. To finally hear and see the presentation of course raised my blood pressure another notch. I have little patience with lunacy (other than my own). When I rant and rave my husband worries. He says it isn't what you say that bothers me -- I am afraid you mean it. People of the right or the left do not respect how strongly each feels about their own position. It is what wars are made of except today the bullets are the harsh language of disrespect and the “put down” of the bully pulpit. For the unstable among us, there is terrorism.

From what I am able to discern from the "established" news media (even our left wing), it is discounted as containing "false presumptions, innuendo and hear say" as truth and meant to discount the involvement of the lunatics in the Muslim cult as the terrorists they are. Many good Muslim believers hold it up as evidence that "We are not terrorists -- it is all a lie of the real perpetrators, the Bush Administration". If not terrorists, who then? Of course. It must be the American government, who else?

While it is often brought up by the "fringe" political "loonies" and those who would disavow responsibility of the terrorist fanatics, the suggestion that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist act seems pure lunancy. Those who designed the World Trade Center thought it was indestructible. It wasn't. But there are those who want desperately to validate its indestructibility. After all what happened to the WTC challenged the established intelligence, consensus and practiced judgments of architects, designers and engineers. So challenged, those people do not go quietly into the good night. Their reputation depends on it.

There are threads of truth within the presentation which thus causes enough doubt to lend credibility to the presentation itself. In fact, this is true of all lunatic diversions. People who don't know or don't bother to get all of the relevant facts tend to believe that one sentence justifies all that follow. Believe me -- there was no political benefit to anyone in this country for the World Towers disaster just as there was none for the prior attacks against us (Pan Am 103, 1993 WTC bombing, Embassy bombing 1998, USS COLE -- to name a few as well as Bali, London, Madrid etc). Bill Clinton closed his eyes. George Bush did not. Yes there are those of us who want the 9/11 commission reconvened. There is some evidence that suggests that the terrorists were identified on Bill Clinton's watch and nothing was done. There are no Saints in this world today. (Even Pope John has yet to be so proclaimed)

Let's face it, there are those among us who simply do not want to accept the fact that there are others who want to destroy the world as it now is and return it to the dark ages and they are called TERRORISTS. I also believe that there is a lunatic fringe that is not Muslims who will "buy into" half baked ideas that support their own political motives or concepts for a better world. These people are not bad people they just grasp anything that will sustain their goals -- some of which I believe are partisan politics, religious, socialistic, communistic and however many other "hopes for a greater Utopia" there may be.

Everyone prefers to blame someone else for the inadequacies of the world. Heaven forbid that we should recognize that there are good and bad people in the world -- right and wrong - black and white. George Bush has done that and in so doing he has tried to get us on the right track. He has chosen not to close his eyes to the threat. I think your Toney Blair believes similarly. They are on the "hot seat" because they dare call "evil" evil. That creates a burden to those who don't want to be bothered or who would rather not "deal with it". Truth be known -- we all feel that way but there are a few of us who worry about the mess we would be in if the terrorist win -- and I believe they will if we don't do something about it now. Believe me -- I cannot subscribe to a Muslim or Islamic world.

Aren't you sorry that you asked my comments? My daughter came in and wanted to know to whom I was writing. I told her that you had asked for my comments and that I was answering. She said, "try to be calm". Ha.

Hope you have a great week. Bottom line of all that I have said is -- yes the item is professionally prepared and I believe that is an indication of how much money and commitment the bad guys of this world have against the US. Unfortunately, George Bush is the scare crow at the top. The fact that the presentation refers to the millions that were spent on prosecuting Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury and engaging in illegal acts while fulfilling the trust of the American people leads me to conclude that distribution of this lunacy is aided by those who would attack and destroy George Bush and reflects a political bias. Now you know why I say one thread of truth does not make a paragraph or even a good sentence of truth. In case you didn't realize it, I felt as strongly against what Bill Clinton did while President as the left feels against George Bush today. Somewhere in the middle are the "moderates" who will save the world. At least we would like to hope there is.

Enough of my chatter. I know you didn't want a newspaper. Always good to hear from you and if you need further "misdirection" just ask -- as you can see I am not short on "opinion". Ha. And, in my opinion, the world in general is in a mess -- but that has been the claim of man down through time.

ONE DOWN AND ONE TO GO

CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NEW SUPREME COURT JUDGE.

John Roberts appears uniquely qualified to sort through the landmine of "excuses", personal "baggage" and precedents delivered by bad judges at every level. While Chief Justice Roberts may not always see the law as I would like, he is acclaimed as a brilliant scholar. He certainly proved himself more capable of analyzing and interpeting the law than the Senators whose job it was to confirm him.

It seems to me that those who voted against his confirmation did so solely on political motive. Clearly, they seem to express a greater commitment to political views and advocacy than they do to "law".

If we can "judge the judge" based on what we know, Judge Roberts brings to the Court an understanding of the law together with an intelligence and wisdom beyond his years. That seems to me a mighty good start to good opinion.