Scam from the School Board?

I just realized that I've not been commenting on cincy and it's environs. Oh well, no one is reading this damn thing anyway. But it gets my vitriol on the outside, so that's probably good. Now on to local issues. 3 Rivers School district is having a bond issue. Here's my take on the recent flyer they sent out.

It’s time the voters of our area said, “ENOUGH!”
It’s time the taxpayers of Three Rivers said, “ENOUGH!”
It’s time the residents of Addyston, North Bend and Cleves said, “ENOUGH!”

Recently, a packet was sent to voters in the district to tell us “Things we need to know about the Three Rivers Bond issue” and “A sound community investment” Let’s look at some the “issues” raised by the school board in the letter.

The district will go from five buildings to two and will lower its operating expenses in the long run by 2 million dollars a year.

A 54.5 million dollar expenditure that will save 2 million a year in the long run? The first building opens in 2009, the second in 2011. So, if the “savings” is in full force by then and presuming there are no additional expenses, then by the year 2038, our 2 million dollar savings will equal our expenditure of 54.5 million dollars. Oh, sorry, the state will “give” us 4 million. That cuts it back to 2036, just to break even.

The land for the new school is already owned by the district. It has clean soil and is not near any environmentally contaminated sites.

OK, let’s just lay this major piece of misdirection to rest. The EPA “findings” state that if you live by Lanxess 24-7 for a period of seventy years or more, you might run a very slightly elevated risk of developing some ailment. If you live seventy years ANYWHERE, you run a risk of developing an ailment. Remember, the EPA didn’t close Hitchens, your school board did. If there was a danger, why didn’t the EPA cite or close Lanxess? Why was some outside, political organization called in to make us “aware” of this threat? Might there actually be a political or a social agenda at work here? Besides, what is the school board, or the township or the EPA doing to help the residents of Addyston and North Bend who are “at risk?” Makes you wonder about certain people’s agendas, doesn’t it?

The money raised is restricted to just construction costs and cannot be diverted to salaries benefits, etc.

The issue language is similar to that used in the Cincinnati bond issue. Now that enrollment has dropped in the city, have you heard of rebates to the taxpayers? No, because the money is being diverted, or plans expanded, despite promises to the contrary.

The new buildings will include expanding access to technology, so Three Rivers students can get more skills for college or in joining the workforce.

Who’s going to pay for this technology? Bond issue money pays for the buildings only. Technology costs money for equipment and trained personnel to teach it. Where will that money come from? That’s right, additional operating levies, more taxes. Instead of technology, that benefits a few, why isn’t emphasis being place on basic academics to benefit the majority?

Building new is cheaper than repairing or renovating the old.

Says who? Where are the studies regarding renovation? I haven’t seen any. Why should taxpayers take the word of those who allowed our schools to get in such shape they require immediate replacement? They say there is “major structural repair needed” in the middle school. Where? If it’s so dangerous, why did they leave the middle school open, close Hitchens and move even more students inside. Something doesn’t seem right here, does it?


Bear one thing in mind my fellow taxpayers. I am not against improving our schools. I am not against our children, our teachers or our school employees. I personally feel that the district and the “Citizens for Three Rivers” have not been forthright with the voters, taxpayers, and certain communities in our district. And until such time as they are, I am urging you to vote no on the bond issue. Thank you for taking the time to participate in the democratic process

Honesty does pay, but not by those who benefit

AP July 25, 2006 DETROIT -
A homeless man who returned $21,000 worth of saving bonds he found in a trash bin is finding out how much honesty can pay off.
Charles Moore, 59, had been searching for returnable bottles last week when he came across the 31 U.S. savings bonds. He turned them in to a homeless shelter, where a staff member tracked down the family of the man who had owned them.

For his good deed, the bond owner’s son gave Moore $100,

but residents around Michigan and in other states decided his action merited a more generous reward.
So far, Moore has received over $4,000.
One man sent him eight trash bags full of returnable bottles and a bowl of coins. Three others gave a combined $2,500, and two businessmen from Troy donated $1,200, a shopping spree and a lead on a job.
“I was thankful for it,” said Moore, who had lost his roofing job in Ohio and moved back to Michigan but couldn’t find work.
Moore said he plans to use the money to find an apartment.
David C. Smith, of Albuquerque, N.M., gave Moore $1,000. Smith said he and his fiancée wouldn’t have thought twice about what to do if the bonds had belonged to them.
“We would have given him the whole amount, period,” Smith said. “No questions asked.”

Now, normally, I'd let this pass unremarked upon. Great, an honest man. God love them, they are far and few between. My consternation lies with the cheap bastards who benefitted from this man's honesty. A $100 reward? You should be ashamed! Total strangers gave him more for his honesty than you did! As for those folks rewarding his honesty, thanks for pointing out that good deeds should be rewarded. For the cheap bastards who got their bonds back, listen up; 10 per cent minimum. I mean, honesty is the best policy and one should do the right thing with no expectation of reward. But seriously, 10 per cent folks. I bet there'll be even more honest people. If anyone finds your stuff, hopefullythey'll give it back, but if there's no reward, I bet they talk about your cheap ass. I know...I just did.

No safe harbor for terrorists

The following is an excerpt of a Washington Post article

European nations and U.N. officials are eager for a cease-fire or "pause" to allow Lebanese civilians to move to safer areas and investigate diplomatic avenues, as well as prevent other Middle East hot spots from becoming inflamed, European envoys said.

"The one thing that is guaranteed to send the Arab world and the Persian world over the edge is for the U.S. to be seen ultimately to be doing what they always believed -- to be fully in cahoots with Israel," said a European official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic relations. "The danger of allowing it to continue is that the United States is more and more despised. It's not like the U.S. had a good reputation within the region to start with."

Why is it that when these idiots harbor terrorists, or give silent consent to their actions and then get their asses kicked because of it, the first thing that happens is some whiny UN or European do-gooder wants a cease fire, "pause" or whatever. Lebanon let all these rockets in from Syria or Iran ( I don't care which) and gave agreement for their stockpiling, then launching them into another sovereign state. Hey idiots, that's an act of war. All bets are off, so take your ass whoopin for being stupid and be grateful if you get to get your country back.

As for the cowardly asshole quoted above: Who cares what these states who support terrorists think? Despise us? They had better fear us. Unfortunately, you've never seen us when we're really pissed. Ask the Japanese, they remember. The Europeans did their diplomatic thing in WWI and II and if we didn't stand up to their aggressors, they'd be speaking a different language. Now, I realize that gratitude or anything like it might be gauche or whatever, but we really would like like them to learn from their mistakes and quit giving up all the time, hoping these bad people will just leave them alone.

Personally, I hope the Zionists become expansionists. Take over Lebanon as the first state of the United States of Israel. Then sub divide it, half to the Lebanese, half to the Palestinians. Then Syria. Same deal. Everybody gets more ground for their state. As for terrorists, try this:
If you turn in a terrorist, you get a check. Or a house. If you are convicted of terrorism, you leave, with your entire family to whatever country will have you. I bet your family members will turn your ass in. Next country that permits terrorism, same thing. Eventually the "moderate" Arabs will be in the majority and the "extremists" will be all in one place, hopefully, small, out of the way, where they won't be missed. Brutal? You betcha! Simplistic? Oh hell yeah! Doable? Probably not. At least not till one of these silly bastards uses a nuke, or Sarin or some othe WMD. Maybe not even then. Hell, they flattened two towers, an embassy, a barracks (both in Lebanon)train stations, airliners, et al and we haven't done a damn thing yet. Shame on us. Go Israel!

Now, I LAY thee down to sleep

HOUSTON, July 12 -- Former Enron Corp. executive Kenneth L. Lay, the business visionary who became a symbol of corporate greed, was memorialized Wednesday for his devotion to his family, his faith and his philanthropy -- and also defended as a "good man" who was the victim of prosecutors and the media.
He was a "straight arrow -- a Boy Scout, if you will -- who lived by Christian-Judeo principles," longtime friend Mick Seidl said during a memorial service that drew almost 1,200 to First United Methodist Church. The church, where Lay and his wife, Linda, were married 24 years ago this Monday, is just blocks from the downtown skyscraper that once housed Enron, the energy-trading giant that Lay built.
"I am saddened he will be remembered for the Enron indictment and trial," Seidl said. "An overzealous federal prosecutor and the media have vilified a good man. It was total character assassination."

Yeah right! Hopefully, "Kenny Boy" as Dubya calls him, is in a particularly warm spot in hell. Despite his buddy's views, the man's shameless greed cost the little guys their life savings. And then he dies (suicide anyone?). I'm not saying yes or no, but since he went to the showers, the trial's over and his heirs keep the cash? Appears so. BTW, Mick? Just in case you see this, judeo-chistian principles teach us to not lie, steal, cheat and to treat others as we would be treated. Violation of these principles lead to punishment on earth and in the hereafter. A Boy Scout is trustworthy, kind and thrifty. Kenny boy was none of these. He was a cheat and a coward. I hope his example causes his ilk to emulate his demise, whether by their own hand, or nature's or a pissed off investor.

Think about it

Three things to think about (from a friend)

1. COWS 2. THE CONSTITUTION 3. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government cantrack a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington? And, they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them all a cow.

THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is you cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians......it creates a hostile work environment.

The "Real Inconvenient Truth"

MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 4:00 p.m. ET July 6, 2006
Western wildfires have increased “suddenly and dramatically” since the late 1980s and the wildfire season grew longer — a pattern that appears tied to global warming, according to a study published Thursday.
“The increase in large wildfires appears to be another part of a chain of reactions to climate warming,” said Dan Cayan, a co-author of the paper and director of the climate research division at Scripps Institution of Oceanography


No, fires start with a higher temperature, dumbass, not from climate temperature. The reason the amount of fires has increased is because of stupid ass, tree hugger inspired legislation that restricts back or clear cutting, brush removal and fire breaks in order to "perserve habitat" for small mammals. (read vermin) This is not my call, but the US Forestry Department's in a statement made in the late '80's opposing the tree hugger legislation, due to the potential increase of brush fires. How soon we forget the "Inconvenient Truth".

Been a little while

N ot that there hasn't been a reason to complain around here, quite the contrary. I've just been so blessed busy. So if you've faithfully been checking, my apologies. more to follow and more regularly too. When in doubt, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!