Mariposa_Xochipilli's Blog

Which one of us would be willing to relinquish the rights which make this nation unique in the world? Who, if anyone, has the authority to ask or force that of any lawbiding American citizen?

Would you, if asked by a public official, elected or not, relinquish your right to free speech? Would you relinquish your right to reasonable search and seizure? Fair Trial? Voting? Education, an obligation assigned to states during the infancy of this country?

What if someone came to you and said that you could keep your right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure as long as you forfeited your right to free speech? That, if you violated forfeiting your right to free speech, there'd be serious legal ramifications.

Having forfeited the right to free speech, how would you be able to let anyone know if the Amendment protecting you from unreasonable search and seizure, which you did not forfeit, had been violated?

Under the proposed settlement composed by one of the school district's many attorneys, we, the identified Claimants, are being asked to sign, in order for funds to be released so our daughters' education can be pursued, as allowed for under federal laws and regularly upheld by the US Supreme Court, outside of a system whose own records show they have not been willing/able to meet accurately established educational needs, is included the following ...

"For the consideration set forth above, Claimants , for themselves and their heirs, legal representatives, assigns, successors, representatives, and attorneys, hereby release, acquits and forever discharge and their respective successors, predecessors, board members, administrators, appointees, officers, employees including any accused persons, agents, representatives, related entities and attorneys, and any liability insurers from any and all claims, demands, debts, liabilities, and causes of action, known or unknown, relating to ______'s education for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, including but not limited to claims:

a) arising under the Indivduals with Disabilities in Education Act or Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004;

b) arising under  504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

c) arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act;

e) arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983; and

f) arising out of any other act, omision, or event relating to ______'s education program for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009."

42 U.S.C. 1983 states ... "CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS   Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privledges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act of omission taken in such officer's judiccial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

Isn't that the slightest bit overkill against the family of a disabled American veteran on a limited income (not that we are yet receiving the retirement payments, we aren't) in these tough economic times? Especially in a state that has given school districts governmental immunity and eliminated monetary damages in educational malpractice cases!? Monty Python's 'Mosquito Hunter' skit comes to mind.

If they've done nothing wrong, why would they need us to acquit them in order for our daughters to receive an education? Why would they include a statute dealing specifically with deprivation of civil rights if they've done nothing to deprive us, or anyone else, of our civil rights?

It's already half way through the terms of the proposed contract. No signing is forthcoming. In six months, the 'problem' will become the new school district's responsibility to fix. That's, simply, not right. Not to mention that a new school district won't have the resources to fix what their predecessors broke.

In the meantime, the  district is not allowing full visual access to the education records. In Winkelman, which the Supreme Court ruled on as a rare united voice, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of having the knowledge in the full records.The Jordan School District is getting away with what not even Richard Nixon was able to get away with.

With our having 'voluntarily' relieved them from accountability under this nation's laws, what would be the district's motivation for actually providing what they've said for years they are willing to provide? They just never mention the attached conditions to anyone in a position of being able to hold them accountable.

How did they become so powerful as to be able to ask us to relinquish our rights in order to receive what the law mandates ... what they receive our tax dollars to provide?

Thank goodness there wasn't a drinking game for every time Senator McCain said "my friend(s)" ... the participants would have all died from alcohol poisoning.

It came off as being very condescending and arrogant. I got tired of it after the first few dozen references. One daughter decided to not vote for him; she knows they aren't buddies. The only time it was appropriate was when he addressed the gentleman who'd been in the navy ... a good officer knows who makes the system work.

Senator McCain, although he claims to be your friend, doesn't exactly fit the 'Joe Sixpack' image. However, I'd gladly test that theory by indulging in a few while metaphorically picking his brain over matters that are important to my family.

Truth be told, if I could pick one person worth getting a hangover with it would be Governor Palin. Regardless of whether you like her political views or not, this is one compelling woman ... a quick study whose pit bull/hockey Mom line is a classic. Her dedication to education is well documented ... I respect a person who is willing to walk the walk. Granted, a few other areas don't reflect the same dedication; but which one of us doesn't have our moments?

So, here's an open invitation to Governor Palin from another hockey Mom with the reputation of a pit bull  ... who happens to have also played and coached hockey - yes, while wearing lipstick ... and who appreciates the difference between being a woman and 'acting'  too much like a lady.

Let's show them some real women  ... tequila/beer slammers and a game of pool. I might be old (including a prosthetic wrist that severely limits my game) and otherwise past my drinking days, but imaginary penny bet says I keep up with you.

Last night, my sister-in-law called asking if we had an old flag with 48 stars. The retirement home she works in was having a '50s Night'. Our oldest flag is from right after Hawaii was given state status. Just missed it!

My husband and I engaged in a conversation about which flag had how many stars and when. Why did the government wait until both Alaska and Hawaii became states before redoing the flag?

The answer seems to be simple ... esthetics.

Forty nine stars isn't as pleasing to look at as fifty stars ... too boxy.

Fifty one stars would be equally as unpleasing as forty nine. We can't grant Puerto Rico statehood unless we find another territory to balance the stars on the flag.

I nominate Guam. It's been strategically significant. It would be a pretty place to visit for those who enjoy travelling around the nation. They already have a historic location active in our National Park system (there are so many new sites lately, its hard to keep track of them all) - War in the Pacific National Historic Park.

Who, geographically speaking, would you nominate to become a state and why? Which state might you want to have expelled from the union?

Remember, the stars on our flag would need to remain balanced (something has to be).

Breakdown,

It is unfortunate that you feel this need to bog down FOX's blogpage by not being willing to allow comments you, by your own admission, may or may not be offended by. It the moderator's job to censor if they feel the need ... not yours. How dare you!

That being said, you bring up some very good points. Who would you have had Barack Obama choose? Someone without foreign policy experience? Someone who wouldn't be able to take on the duties of President should Obama's life end?

World governments have accepted Senators McCain, Obama and Biden as prospective/potential Presidents. The same is not true of Gov. Palin. With all the sheltering McCains' campaign is doing, it leaves a perception that Palin cannot withstand scrutiny in this nation ... let alone on a world stage.

Come on, her foreign policy expertise based on the fact that Alaska is the state closest to Russia. Exactly what foreign policy expertise does that give her? How does supporting the 'bridge to nowhere' until the state's financial obligation increased mesh with her criticism of Obama supposedly being pro-earmark? Where was she when that nationally greatest of earmark specialists, a man from her own state, was collecting earmarks for Alaska at a rate that wound up with him being investigated for abuse of power?

Gov. Sarah Palin, if she is not as good an interviewee as she is a speaker, would quickly find out, on a global scale, the true meaning of 'barracuda'. That would serve our nation ... how?

Albert Einstein once said that his 'reward' for showing contempt of authority was to eventually become an authority himself.

The person helping my family through our difficult circumstances, a former legislator, turned to me after our most recent meeting with the district. He asked if I had my Bachelors degree. I said no, that I had chosen to go to a trade school.

He said that was too bad because he thought I'd make a great lawyer and should enter law school immediately.

Heaven help me ... I'm considering beginning the process!

Although I have the utmost respect for John McCain's service to this nation ... both while in uniform and the Senate ... there are two policy postions he holds that give me cause for concern.

First, he would repeal Roe V. Wade. I am NOT pro-abortion on demand, nor would I personally ever be able to end what would be a viable pregnancy, but there are others ways of handling the issue ... such as instilling respect for a woman's body and promoting adoption as an alternative to the procedure.

Roe V. Wade was about freedom of safe medical choice. The specific circumstances happened to involve ending a pregnancy without risking ending one's life (if you've ever seen a blood stained hotel hallway or known someone who became sterile from a botched illegal abortion, it gives you a different perspective). Repeal Roe V. Wade and you take away your right to choose what medical care is appropriate to meet your needs.

Our government simply does not have the right to tell an individual what to do with their own body, however offensive it might be to any other given individual or group of individuals, and what medical treatment they may or may not have the option of choosing. That right belongs with the individual.

Second is Senator McCain's stance on vouchers. As taxpayers, we have a right to make sure the money we give the government is used wisely. The education system is broken. Vouchers do nothing to fix that. Our money would still be wasted.

There is no incentive for schools to get better. They'll still get paid no matter how poorly they do their job. Vouchers won't change that. We would be, metaphorically, putting a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound that is still hemmoraging.

Gov. Palin spoke of meeting the needs of families with special needs dependents. Educational services for those students are funded through the public school system. The money for those needed basic services would not be included with vouchers. The options would become prohibitively costly out of pocket expenses while still paying taxes or staying in the broken public school system.

A solution that doesn't include allowing the system to perpetuate the failures is to give schools money based on the students enrolled. This is similar to vouchers, but keeps the money in the system rather than putting it into the parents' hands. If you don't have the enrollment because you aren't a good school, you don't get the money you need to stay open. As with vouchers, parents would be in charge of deciding what school they want their child to attend.

It puts private, charter and public schools on the same playing field. There would be accountability ... something not present when vouchers, alone, are implemented.

However, Senator McCain's stance on education does offer me one ray of hope ... it acknowledges that, when states abdicate their responsibilities toward education, the federal governemnt has the obligation of stepping in to ensure a proper public education for the students who will someday become this nation's leaders.