Category: June

By the way, at least dogs, poop, bras, sex, lube, human skin, and farts are things that are proven to exist.

The obvious answer is that you desire to thwart, to circumvent the will of the electorate.  You want to take the decision out of the hands of the voters.  You intend to make a decision to hamstring the incoming Board of which one of you will be gone and possibly as many as three, a clear majority.  It appears that at least two of you are so fearful of not being reelected that you plan to leave a legacy as if you were still on the dais.  The third of your gang of three is not even running for reelection and, if there ever was an instance that cries out for “I abstain”, this is it.  For such a clear lame duck to vote to restrict the District leadership for years to come is unconscionable and reflective of someone who is ethically challenged.

Again, I ask:  Why the urgency?  The current superintendent has fourteen months remaining on his contract.  He is not going anywhere.  He is not using a sexy offer from another district to leverage an extension.  Who knows, in the next year, his performance might so improve that you will want to extend his contract by more than two years and throw in a raise as well.  Why deprive him of that opportunity?

Andrew Jackson had his “kitchen cabinet”, advisors who did not hold office but to whom Jackson was beholden.  Is that the plan?  Extend the superintendent’s contract by two years; put $300,000 in his pocket and he will be beholden to you.  That way, if you lose office, you will still have entre into the executive suite in the Henriquez Building.  The superintendent has routinely demonstrated with his own appointments how much he values loyalty and the importance of a quid pro quo.  I am sure that is not lost on you.  Extend the superintendent’s contract — extend your influence.

Ron, you say that the superintendent has brought “stability” to the District and thus deserves to be rewarded.  Yet what is the optimum way to achieve stability?  Do nothing.  You say that the District is “out of the ditch.”  I assume by that you mean that the District has returned to a sound financial footing.  That is a factor of a changed economy, of improving property taxes and nothing over which the superintendent has influence.  As for areas that he can influence, FCAT scores for example, they declined.  And, when you talk about “integrity”, you are talking about someone who routinely and reflexively says what is convenient at the moment.

John, you are quoted as saying “He’s made some mistakes, but I think that he is doing a good enough of a job.  I am satisfied with his work.” Then, you go on to say: “Of course, there are areas where I want to see improvement.”  If that is not a paean to mediocrity, I do not know what is. Conversely, you seem to want things both ways, reminding me of Harry Truman’s wish for a one-armed economist.  That way, Harry said, the economist could never say: “On the other hand….”

To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel:
Where have you gone, John Dick,
A School District turns its lonely eyes to you
What’s that you say?
Joltin’ John has left and gone away.

The John Dick of 2006 is but a memory.

Rob Smith-Martin, you of the superlatives when discussing the superintendent.  “What we need now is a steady hand.  I think Porter is the right guy.”  Yet, you also say “I haven’t made up my mind.”  The only thing that you did not say is: “I’m from the government and I am here to help you.”

As someone who will be long gone come November, if not sooner, it is disingenuous that you would even consider voting to extend a superintendent’s contract.  As Joseph Welch said to Joseph McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Finally, there is Andy Griffiths, one of the architects of this charade and fiasco.  Having set the wheels in motion to extend the superintendent’s contract, now you are not so sure.  One year is all right, but “I think going to 2017, I think that’s overreaching.”  Talk about the classic hair split. Somehow one year is okay, but two is too much.  We have another example a la Dick and Smith-Martin of wanting it both ways. Watch the voting: Ed Davidson will start with a resounding “No.” Ron Martin will balance that with an equally vigorous “Yes.” Rob Smith-Martin will squirm and fidget before casting a “Yes” vote. John Dick will also squirm and fidget and probably offer some reasons for why he should vote “No” before yielding to the inevitable and voting “Yes.”

Now, sports fans, the fun begins.  The motion to extend the superintendent’s contract has already passed 3-1.  So it makes no difference how Andy votes.  That being the case, the prime mover will vote “No” and be the only one on the Board to truly have it both ways.  ~citizenlarry007@yahoo.com

Specials
Wednesday: meatloaf
Thursday: chicken salad
Friday: beer battered mahi

There’s Always Something Special at Springers.

“It appears there’s an attempt to marginalize people who hold views that are sharply different from those of the administration and much of the establishment, said Horace Cooper, co-chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board. Project 21 is a network of black conservatives. Cooper also said: “There is simply no anti-black or anti-minority underground movement in America that is threatening in any way the stability of our government or the stability of local governments. There is just nothing like that.”

Cooper said plenty of presidents dealt with critical speech, particularly in opposition to the Vietnam War and even the Iraq War. He said no president ever responded like this.

Today a poster mentioned Orwell’s prescient novel “1984.” More and more it is becoming evident that the Obama administration fancies itself an oligarchy not unlike Oceana (check out Orwell’s 1984 at Link).
The following link fully explains what Obama/Holder are up to. It is very troubling: Link

A POSTER WROTE: “I don’t live in a country called “My Way or the Highway.” I live in the USA that was built on the concept of compromise, a country where we attempt to find some mutual agreement or common ground on an issue. I believe in our 2nd amendment as written, but not necessarily as interpreted. I believe we have the right to hunt, the right to protect oneself, to practice in a safe and secure environment, and the right to be safe and secure in our home.

I don’t believe in the right to “open carry” in public. (If someone walked into a restaurant packing an AK47 I would feel threatened and could use my permitted concealed weapon to protect myself from possible harm.) I don’t believe guns should be sold at gun shows without a background check.

This is where I admit it gets sticky. I believe one can sell a gun to another citizen. But how do we background check the buyer? When one sells a car to another, the buyer is required to register the car to use it on a public highway. I don’t have a simple answer on this exchange because I’m not an expand government guy. But, if you own a car and sell it to another and the car gets into an accident with your plate on the car and no proof of sale, (you didn’t turn your plates in) you can be held responsible.

Regarding the high powered semi automatic weapons, I see no necessity for them except to kill civilians and police officers. I cringe when I read a story about law enforcement placed in that situation.

I don’t believe we could get rid of guns even if we wanted to. It’s as silly as the war on drugs. If there is a will, there is a way to get almost anything. I just don’t want to make it as easy as it is today.”

For those of us who have read “1984” or “Brave New World” many may feel we are speeding in that direction. As to that paranoia, you and I too old to live in that world. Actually, we’ll probably destroy the human race first.”

FTR’S RESPONSE: A tip of the FTR fedora to the poster for presenting a well thought out and well written item. I find myself in agreement with much of what the poster wrote. I too don’t like open carry, it is intimidating to many, and may actually be provocative.

We part ways on the issue of background checks. Frankly, they do little or no good. The “background” check now in use is really nothing more than a quick criminal history computer check. It does nothing to reveal the subjects proclivity for violence. It tells nothing of his/her reputation in his/her community, it does nothing whatsoever to delve into any mental health problems the subject might have, it does nothing to determine if the subject is suicidal or is contemplating harm to another. It does nothing to deter a gang member or a member of an organization that promulgates violence. Under the current NICS system, buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substances (please note the words “admitting to”), having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations.

CNN reports that since its implementation in 1998, 2.1 million background checks have been denied out of 118 million requests, that’s not even 2%. Link

It makes you wonder how many millions we have spent for so little benefit, and still the bad guys get guns.

Then of course how can society deal with a person who has legally bought a gun, then became unstable and dangerous?

Essentially the currently required check is only a device that permits the government to record the fact that you have purchased a gun, and how many guns you own.

Many people compare the registration of guns and the licensing of gun owners to car registration and driver’s licenses. They are not analogous. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. That is settled law. Ownership of firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed right. That too is settled law.

The poster wrote his/her view on “high powered semi auto weapons”. I agree that that type of weapon can be very dangerous, but it all depends on how they are used. Those types of guns absolutely have a valid hunting/sporting purpose. The much maligned civilian AK47 (5.45×39 cal) and AR15 (.223 cal) only look like military weapons, they actually have no military purpose. They are nothing more than civilian military lookalikes. They are the Elvis impersonators of the firearms world. They are far less powerful that many more “civilized” appearing semi auto hunting rifles such as the Remington model 750, the Benneli R1, or the Browning Automatic Rifle (not the now defunct military BAR). All are chambered in the 30.O6 caliber round which is magnitudes more powerful than the AK or the AR. There are legions of people who shoot the civilian look a likes for hunting, sport, and range shooting.

It will be impossible to fully disarm America. Nor should we try. The spate of multiple shootings has created much agony for our nation and fuel for the anti gun set. But the tragedies universally share characteristics. Almost always the shooters are deranged. Almost always the mayhem is brought to a halt by the armed intervention of civilians or law enforcement.

Logically we should be seeking ways to protect all of us from those deranged persons, not the gun. If they had no gun, they might use gasoline, cars, knives, clubs, explosives, nearly anything has the potential of being capable of delivering mayhem. The most horrendous mass killings in America have been by explosives, not guns.

In the very recent Vegas murder of two cops, a civilian, and the deaths of the two shooters, it has been reported that an armed citizen intervened by exchanging gunfire with the shooters. One shooter was wounded, shortly thereafter they were cornered and they shot each other. If the reports that an armed citizen intervened are true, it is yet another example of why it is important for us to possess and carry firearms if we choose to avail ourselves of that right.

=================================

A POSTER WROTE: “The background on this publication should be of an American flag as Fox News leads the way for you. If you can show your patriotism, in a conservative thinkers mind, then it’s ok to rob the working man and give that money to multinational corporations, who btw, have no allegiance to the US.” ANOTHER POSTER WROTE: “A POSTER WROTE: “The ‘right” is the choir and Fox News plays to them. Generally, they aren’t going anywhere else for infotainment and brainwashing.”

FTR’S RESPONSE: Two words strike abject terror into the breasts of our friends from left field. The words are FOX NEWS. It’s understandable. Fox actually does accurate reporting and actually does present many voices from left field. There is no question that Fox’s reportage leans to the right. It is the only major news outlet that is not a mouthpiece for liberality. Fox is the nation’s preeminent news source. More Americans rely on it than any other. No wonder the left fielders fear and loath it. It would do them some good if they had the courage to simply watch a Fox news show or two. Sheppard Smith’s news cast has a liberal slant, they might enjoy that.

Thanks for stopping by…..Respectfully submitted:   FTR