Recently our school district has proposed another educational plan for our children: let them out early every Wednesday for teacher discussions and meetings.
What the public school districts have going for them is the ability to tax to the tune of millions in every community, but as with every entrenched government entity, they do not realize their obsolete system is wholly expendable and replaceable. And like many professional “experts” in this country, they have somehow arrived with the conclusion they are more important than those they serve ” our children and our families.
Like the many governments who tax us, fine us and fee us, often totaling 50 percent of our incomes; only then are they able to govern by borrowing hundreds of billions yearly. The public schools’ need for money is only surpassed by their inability to provide the services they were intended to provide. If teachers need to have time for extra meetings, they may want to consider using some of the other 185 days of the year for which teachers collect a salary, but do not teach.
Someone once said to me the only thing for which the public schools prepare our children is for a life spent in prison. So before my kids start early on this path every Wednesday, scoring dope, watching daytime soft-porn and violence on TV and eating the house empty, I will quit my job to be home with them. And the other 185 days a year you do nothing for me. Then let’s see you collect your taxes to run your schools from a man with no income, no home, no property and no way to pay any bills.
At least I won’t have to worry about the lack of summer school or after-school care. I won’t worry about class sizes, early finish days, school holidays, school lunches, bus bullies and cranky bus drivers, mean receptionists, evasive administrators, day care for my youngest, kindergarten tuition, or anything else you don’t do very well or charge extra for despite the millions you already have.
Can anyone say, “School vouchers?”
David J. Blazier
I believe the county attorneys should cease and desist, concerning RVs used as permanent residences, in a county with a severe lack of housing.
First of all, consider the alternative. A completely legal tent city. Already upheld in many metropolitan areas over the last decade. I think the county attorneys would agree this would be a bigger and totally unenforceable code violation headache than the present situation. Especially in light of the tent cities that are in fact popping up all over America. In cities, and in towns where they’ve gone and turned housing into investment opportunities and the bankrupt foundation of this house-of-cards economy presently tumbling towards long-term world wide depression. Because gas is sold on fifty-year contracts the need isn’t going to go away anytime soon.
Secondly, seeing the law of the land is sleeping, and is an inalienable right; that thumps any and all federal, state or county laws, the county attorney is opening themselves up to civil rights actions from those evicted by being erroneously-profiled as permanent residence; because their RV has been insulated against the winter weather.
It seems to me renters are legally considered transient populations, unless possibly if the lease is very long-term. So, I think it prudent for the county to leave well enough alone because the solution necessity (the constant need for affordable housing) will be forced to take against their laws (pertaining to structures rather than people) could take the whole ball game out of its jurisdiction.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
#PostSnaps from Instagram for the week of Dec. 15.