On Sunday, December second, Raven L. Hill writes about the Austin School district being the first in the state to try a fingerprinting system that requires public school employees to have nation criminal background checks. You can read the story here. Under a new state law, an estimated 392,000 Texas employees need to submit their fingerprints to the Texas Education Agency. All others must submit by September 2011. Employees such as the janitors, cafeteria workers and other support hired after Jan. 1 will be subjected to the fingerprint background checks as well, those hired before then will only face statewide checks. I cannot believe that state officials agree with using Austin as a test.
In the absence of national searches, school districts have "ticking time bombs" in their midst, said Doug Phillips, director of investigations and fingerprinting at the state education agency. Phillips also said "you don't necessarily know who you have until you run that fingerprint," "we've been behind the rest of nation, now we will actually be out front of a lot of states by fingerprinting everybody." Please tell me Doug Phillips how being behind in education matters will be made up for when you start fingerprinting the teachers? It wont, it has nothing to do with being 'behind' , it has to do with the state wanting to start fingerprinting everyone so they can have track of what and who everywhere. I do not believe it is right for people like Phillips to use such an emotionally charged issue to take the focus away from more pressing matters. Of course parents are going to be 'pro-printing' because they are going to want to protect their children, and now wheres the focus on actually education spending? I think that Texas should work on educating the kids so they will be at a level where the teachers are worth fingerprinting, right now Texas is ranked so low this is sort of a joke, and why is this such a priority? They say the test is going to cost between $50- $60 a teacher. Average $55 a test means the state racks in $1,936,275.00, Payday!
California, Florida, and New York are among the sates that require all school employees to be fingerprinted. Some Texas school districts implemented national background checks years ago.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Monday, December 3, 2007
Response to: Perry joins book writing band wagon
I am not surprised to hear that Rick Perry Joins the book writing band wagon. What not a better time either than election time. It does not surprise me that Perry wrote a book about his childhood memories because he is a politician, and as a politician he is one of the most predictable ones. Perry loves to do what everyone else is doing especially if it will give him a vote. I do think Perry is seriously considering running with Giuliani if he wins the Republican nomination, even though he has said no. Perry probably chose for the book to be about his childhood memories because, well, who would read it if he wrote about anything else? So having to be remotely interesting and connected with 'real people' lives, he wrote about his time as a boy scout. The book, which is due out in February, comes with the announcement that he is receiving the 2007 Distinguished Citizen Award from, yes, you guessed it, the Boy Scouts of America Capitol Area Council of Austin. I do not think this book was written for the Boy scouts of Americas' image, but better yet for Perry's image, because the boy scouts are already well known, honored gentleman of society and I don't think they need to work on their image, it's Perry that needs to work.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Perry defends luxury rental home
Governor says he and first lady share space with security detail, state guests:
Gov. Rick Perry on Friday defended his new digs: the gated home near Barton Creek Country Club where he's staying while the Governor's Mansion is renovated.
Critics have lampooned Perry for the almost $10,000-a-month rent the state is paying for him and first lady Anita Perry during what could be an 18- month renovation. I too do not agree with Gov. Perry being allowed to spend almost then thousand dollars a month just for rent on his rental home. Not only is the Gov. Mansion being renovated at the states expense but we also get to pick up the humble rental check.
"If it were just my wife and myself in six-plus thousand square feet, they might have a point," Perry said of his critics. " But there's 21 members of the governor's protective detail that use up probably a good third of the space." Does this include the pool?
Perry said the home- which had been for sale for $1.8 million- is used for meetings and entertainment too. Of course the house is used for that too, he's the Governor. I'm sure there were other houses, where he is supposed to be renting, for less rent.
Perry goes on to try and say that architects warned him the Mansion was in danger of being lost to fire or structural damage and so the need for renovation is necessary, and therefore needed a place to live. Perry says that since moving from the Gov. Mansion that he has missed being near Town Lake, but that "it's fun getting to know new neighbors," He also said " it's fun, actually, to have neighbors." Perry said he spent Halloween handing out candy bars to the kids, how nice of him.
A reporter pointed out to Perry that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee moved into a triple- wide mobile home in 2000 for mansion renovations. The trailer was placed on mansion grounds. Gov. Perry replied "Texas, Aint Arkansas."
It does not matter what excuse Governor Perry tries to make about why he chose the house that he chose, I am still not going to agree with it. It is a big waste of the states money just to house some folks for a while no matter which way you try and look at the situation.
Gov. Rick Perry on Friday defended his new digs: the gated home near Barton Creek Country Club where he's staying while the Governor's Mansion is renovated.
Critics have lampooned Perry for the almost $10,000-a-month rent the state is paying for him and first lady Anita Perry during what could be an 18- month renovation. I too do not agree with Gov. Perry being allowed to spend almost then thousand dollars a month just for rent on his rental home. Not only is the Gov. Mansion being renovated at the states expense but we also get to pick up the humble rental check.
"If it were just my wife and myself in six-plus thousand square feet, they might have a point," Perry said of his critics. " But there's 21 members of the governor's protective detail that use up probably a good third of the space." Does this include the pool?
Perry said the home- which had been for sale for $1.8 million- is used for meetings and entertainment too. Of course the house is used for that too, he's the Governor. I'm sure there were other houses, where he is supposed to be renting, for less rent.
Perry goes on to try and say that architects warned him the Mansion was in danger of being lost to fire or structural damage and so the need for renovation is necessary, and therefore needed a place to live. Perry says that since moving from the Gov. Mansion that he has missed being near Town Lake, but that "it's fun getting to know new neighbors," He also said " it's fun, actually, to have neighbors." Perry said he spent Halloween handing out candy bars to the kids, how nice of him.
A reporter pointed out to Perry that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee moved into a triple- wide mobile home in 2000 for mansion renovations. The trailer was placed on mansion grounds. Gov. Perry replied "Texas, Aint Arkansas."
It does not matter what excuse Governor Perry tries to make about why he chose the house that he chose, I am still not going to agree with it. It is a big waste of the states money just to house some folks for a while no matter which way you try and look at the situation.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Banning Sex Offenders' Travel
Little Elm, Texas- A north Texas town is considering an ordinance that would restrict not only where registered sex offenders can live, but also where they can go. The residency restriction, which is similar to ordinance in several Texas cities, would prohibit registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of places where children commonly gather, including schools, parks and libraries. But little elm also wants to measure to keep registered sex offenders from entering these areas, regardless of where they live. These restricted zones include about 68% of the land in town.
Now I understand and agree with the fact that registered sex offenders should not be allowed near these areas, and I also agree that it should be monitored where these sex offenders are living, but to cut someone off of 68% of the town they live in is a bit excessive.
The story goes on to say that the Council was expected to vote on the ordinance Tuesday. The Police Chief, Waylan Rhodes says "My job is to try and out think the bad guys" and he said he has heard about how residency restrictions have been ineffective and thought " well, if that's the case, why don't we just make out 1,000 foot radius apply to any registered sex offender? " I agree with that.
The Texas law prohibits most sex offenders who are on parole or probation from going within 1,000 feet of places like schools and day care centers, but this town about 30 miles north of Dallas wants to extend that to all registered sex offenders, even after they have completed their probation. A violation to this ordinance is a misdemeanor that comes with a fine up to 500$.
Now that seems silly to me, they seem to be making such a big deal about where these registered sex offenders can and can not go and the fine is only 500$??
I feel that each case should be dealt with separately. There are cases where girls claim rape and then some guys have to plead guilty to rape etc, to get a lighter sentence. Then had to register as a sex offender when they were released. These guys that may or may not have raped a female but since they had to plead guilty because a girl wanted to lie because she was embarrassed she drank too much now have a ruined life. If one of these guys has kids, and is a registered sex offender, they are not going to be able to be the dad that they most likely want to be because they are not allowed to be near their kids in certain places. I am by no means sticking up for the real child molesters out there!! That is why I think that this should not pass and these cases should be looked at individually.
Now I understand and agree with the fact that registered sex offenders should not be allowed near these areas, and I also agree that it should be monitored where these sex offenders are living, but to cut someone off of 68% of the town they live in is a bit excessive.
The story goes on to say that the Council was expected to vote on the ordinance Tuesday. The Police Chief, Waylan Rhodes says "My job is to try and out think the bad guys" and he said he has heard about how residency restrictions have been ineffective and thought " well, if that's the case, why don't we just make out 1,000 foot radius apply to any registered sex offender? " I agree with that.
The Texas law prohibits most sex offenders who are on parole or probation from going within 1,000 feet of places like schools and day care centers, but this town about 30 miles north of Dallas wants to extend that to all registered sex offenders, even after they have completed their probation. A violation to this ordinance is a misdemeanor that comes with a fine up to 500$.
Now that seems silly to me, they seem to be making such a big deal about where these registered sex offenders can and can not go and the fine is only 500$??
I feel that each case should be dealt with separately. There are cases where girls claim rape and then some guys have to plead guilty to rape etc, to get a lighter sentence. Then had to register as a sex offender when they were released. These guys that may or may not have raped a female but since they had to plead guilty because a girl wanted to lie because she was embarrassed she drank too much now have a ruined life. If one of these guys has kids, and is a registered sex offender, they are not going to be able to be the dad that they most likely want to be because they are not allowed to be near their kids in certain places. I am by no means sticking up for the real child molesters out there!! That is why I think that this should not pass and these cases should be looked at individually.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The Invincible Govenor Rick Perry
Our Governor Rick Perry and wife will be relocating next month to a humble little gated home in a gated community about twenty five minutes southwest of downtown Austin while the Governors mansion undergoes about 18 months of extensive renovations. The house that Governor Perry choose runs at $10,000 a month. The 4,600 square foot five bed, five bath house was appraised at $1million but has been for sale for $1.8 million. It was completely renovated in 2002 with award-winning bathroom and kitchen and the property includes an 1,100 square foot guest house, suitable for DPS troopers to watch over the states first family.
Mrs. Perry "looked at a dozen house before 'settling' with this one". It just so happens that the property is owned by a Mr. Murrell J. Campell, an elderly man whose daughter, Melinda Grace is the executioner of the property; now Mrs. Grace's husband, Mr. Guy Grace, has donated $2,500 to the Perry campaign since 2005 and also to the Bush campaign. Is this all just a coincidence? I think not.
This story can be found in the Austin American States man or here <http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/campaign/entries/2007/09/26/perrys_to_lease.html >. The story was covered by W. Garner Shelby and has been continuously updated since then, updates as they come such as lease news and property evaluations and mansion renovation news. I do not feel that these updates are as important as the black and whiteness of the story, meaning Perry is wasting state tax dollars for an unnecessary house. Not only is this house going to cost the state $10,000 a month for about eighteen months, but the house is not even in the City of Austin. The minute issue with this is that in a small piece of legislature, the Texas Constitution, it states : in Article 3 Section 58 : "The Legislature shall hold hold its sessions at the City of Austin, which is hereby declared to be the seat of government" , and in Article 4 Section 13 it states: -Residence of Governor- " During the session of legislature, the Governor shall reside where its sessions are held, (remember article 3?) and at all other times at the seat of Government, except when by act of the legislature, he may be required or authorized to reside elsewhere." My guess is that Perry, like his buddy Bush, feel as if they do not have to follow constitutions when in office, and the tax payers that support them do. Perry had one of his little minions try and insure the tax payers that this was all 'okay', but I have a feeling that that wont be enough.
I feel that this is a ridiculous waste of tax payer's money, there are plenty of other homes that Perry could have chosen from. I understand that when you are used to living in luxury you are going to continue to want to do that but not when it is practically political suicide by wasting money, I guess Perry is not going to run for Governor again. Also if the Perry's are so comfortable with unconstitutional acts, like residing outside the City of Austin, why could they not have of just stayed in their home in Dripping Springs? Makes me think that the kids without proper education, homes and health coverage was not crossing the Governor's mind when he was searching for the right home with a pool and full outside kitchen.
Mrs. Perry "looked at a dozen house before 'settling' with this one". It just so happens that the property is owned by a Mr. Murrell J. Campell, an elderly man whose daughter, Melinda Grace is the executioner of the property; now Mrs. Grace's husband, Mr. Guy Grace, has donated $2,500 to the Perry campaign since 2005 and also to the Bush campaign. Is this all just a coincidence? I think not.
This story can be found in the Austin American States man or here <http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/campaign/entries/2007/09/26/perrys_to_lease.html >. The story was covered by W. Garner Shelby and has been continuously updated since then, updates as they come such as lease news and property evaluations and mansion renovation news. I do not feel that these updates are as important as the black and whiteness of the story, meaning Perry is wasting state tax dollars for an unnecessary house. Not only is this house going to cost the state $10,000 a month for about eighteen months, but the house is not even in the City of Austin. The minute issue with this is that in a small piece of legislature, the Texas Constitution, it states : in Article 3 Section 58 : "The Legislature shall hold hold its sessions at the City of Austin, which is hereby declared to be the seat of government" , and in Article 4 Section 13 it states: -Residence of Governor- " During the session of legislature, the Governor shall reside where its sessions are held, (remember article 3?) and at all other times at the seat of Government, except when by act of the legislature, he may be required or authorized to reside elsewhere." My guess is that Perry, like his buddy Bush, feel as if they do not have to follow constitutions when in office, and the tax payers that support them do. Perry had one of his little minions try and insure the tax payers that this was all 'okay', but I have a feeling that that wont be enough.
I feel that this is a ridiculous waste of tax payer's money, there are plenty of other homes that Perry could have chosen from. I understand that when you are used to living in luxury you are going to continue to want to do that but not when it is practically political suicide by wasting money, I guess Perry is not going to run for Governor again. Also if the Perry's are so comfortable with unconstitutional acts, like residing outside the City of Austin, why could they not have of just stayed in their home in Dripping Springs? Makes me think that the kids without proper education, homes and health coverage was not crossing the Governor's mind when he was searching for the right home with a pool and full outside kitchen.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Traffic congestion increases in most metro areas
Drivers waste nearly an entire work week each year sitting in traffic on the way to and from their jobs, according to a national study released Tuesday. The nation's drivers languished in traffic delays for a total of 4.2 billion hours in 2005, up from 4 billion the year before, according to the Texas Traffic Institute's urban mobility report. That's about 38 hours per driver.
"Things are bad and they're getting worse," said Alan Pisarski, a transportation expert and the author of "Commuting in America." The study summed it up this way: "Too many people, too many trips over too short of a time period on a system that is too small." The Los Angeles metro area had the worst congestion, delaying drivers an average of 72 hours a year. It was followed by Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington and Dallas. The least congested metro areas were Spokane, Wash., and Brownsville, Texas, where drivers were delayed an average of eight hours a year. "With the pace of growth that we have here, it's pretty difficult to reduce congestion," Hayse said. "Trying to keep it at today's level is really our goal." With already high gas prices and natural resources depreciating fast traffic is not a problem to over look. Everyone should do their part whether it be riding with someone to work or school or read up on new gas and time saving tips. This article really opened my eyes to how much time people actaully waste sitting in a car.
"Things are bad and they're getting worse," said Alan Pisarski, a transportation expert and the author of "Commuting in America." The study summed it up this way: "Too many people, too many trips over too short of a time period on a system that is too small." The Los Angeles metro area had the worst congestion, delaying drivers an average of 72 hours a year. It was followed by Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington and Dallas. The least congested metro areas were Spokane, Wash., and Brownsville, Texas, where drivers were delayed an average of eight hours a year. "With the pace of growth that we have here, it's pretty difficult to reduce congestion," Hayse said. "Trying to keep it at today's level is really our goal." With already high gas prices and natural resources depreciating fast traffic is not a problem to over look. Everyone should do their part whether it be riding with someone to work or school or read up on new gas and time saving tips. This article really opened my eyes to how much time people actaully waste sitting in a car.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)