I’m not really sure what Jim50’s point was. If he is trying to support voter id legislation the articles he picked were strange. The first article from US News talks about a republican operative that was convicted of voter fraud in Maryland for illegally trying to suppress minority votes, who normally vote for Democrats. The second article from (and tell me that this isn’t a propaganda rag) the “Election Law Center – more red than the ivory tower” talks about people that voted illegally in Minnesota due to a recent change in election laws. The law made it illegal for convicted felons who had fully served their sentence (who previously been allowed to vote) the right to vote. The problem was that most of the people that voted illegally didn’t know that the law had changed. The article goes on to say that most of the people who were charged “simply pled ignorance” of the law and were not convicted of any crime. The number of people identified as voting illegally under this new law represents a fration of the total electorate and had no effect on the election, and voter id legislation would have done nothing to stop this problem. Let’s be honest. Voter id laws will not stop voter fraud. How many people believe that it is impossible to get a fake id? Just like under aged drinkers, if they have the will, can obtain the proper documentation to buy alcohol, people who want to vote illegally will be able to do the same thing. Voter ids will not prevent voter fraud, all it will do suppress voters rights

School boards and superintendents come and go, but the bureaucracy remains intact. The patronage system that promotes incompetence has been the ruling force for the last fifty years. All the literature for school reform speaks to decentralization of power and shared decision making, the exact opposite of the model presently used by the district. You can’t attract responsible parents to send their children to KC schools when they do not trust the district, they have no say in how their children are being educated and they don’t feel that their children are safe. If you want to save the district, tear it down and rebuild it from the bottom up starting with making the schools community schools with community governance.

Or, it could be that she moved to Roeland Park for the schools, which are far better than the ones ruined by progressive Democrats in KCMO. Posted by: Gary The school district was ruined by years of inequality propagated by narrow minded narrow minded individuals that believed that opportunity should be reserved for the few. We talk about moving if you don’t like the situation that you are in, but they restricted where black people lived so that they would not have to live near them. They did not allow black students access to near by schools because those schools were too good for black children to go to. The ratio of per pupil spending for white children and black children was grossly skewed in favor of white school children. They refused to implement neighborhood integration until five years after the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. After they were forced to allow students to attend neighborhood schools they began changing the boundaries of the neighborhoods which attended the local schools, in some cases drawing the boundaries around a single house to make sure that black children were discriminated against. At this time however, black parents understood the value of a good education and began moving into predominately white neighborhoods so that their children would have increased opportunity to better themselves as adults. With each effort that black families made to help their children, less than progressive adults found ways to make sure that the schools they attended were less than adequate. The year that Paseo High School became a majority black populated school, an award winning chemistry teacher was transferred to Southwest High School by the district, whose school board consisted of members handpicked by the Chamber of Commerce, and replace with a teacher and a curriculum that taught janitorial science. When the court did step in in the late 60’s the less than progressives moved to Kansas so that they could delay having their children go to schools with black children or sending their children to private schools. The school district is failing because it is isolated by forces that want to insure that it fails.

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” Adam Smith The Tea Party and the OWS movement is full of resentment in the belief that the government is in partnership with the 1%ers to limit opportunity. Public policy tends to favor those who can pay for it.

Who among us has said as a joke, or just in general something rude about a political figure? If that is wrong then we are all guilty. From the e-mails Dr. K understood that there was an issue with him taking action against the student, but he did anyway because of pressure from the Governor’s office. If there was a code of conduct violation, please, someone show it to me. If there was not a violation, why was she in the principal’s office in the first place? Sullivan was not guilty of anything other than making a political statement. Krawitz was not guilty of anything other than giving in to political pressure that he obviously understood was a bad move, (and he doesn’t deserve death threats any more than an eighteen year old girl deserves to be bullied in school and called an “attention whore”). The person that was wrong was the official in the Governor’s office who used their position to punish a young girl for doing what our founding fathers risked their lives to give us the freedom to do.

Capitalism has created the modern society that we have today because it created the opportunity for society too grow. The problem with it is in its purist form is that it is economic Darwinism that does not focus on societal goals but rather on individual goals of individual and their need for greed. It also depends on a never ending thirst for consumption that is unsustainable. In our economic system the real job producers are consumers buying goods. The real winners are the producers that control the factors of production. According to Dan Morgan a small group of companies control grain distribution, after a series of mergers in the oil industry a small group of companies control that market also. It is plain that free markets do not exist in vital market areas. There still is opportunity for individual to successfully navigate some markets, but does anyone really believe that if a bigger stronger competitor enters the market that they can survive the competition. History does not support that argument.

if I owe $100,000 and Obama's tax increases are passed, what percentage of that deficit is eliminated? - JDog I have a better question. If I am fifty now and am looking forward to receiving $1,500 dollars per month in Social Security benefits when I reach sixty-five, when Congressional Republicans cut my benefits in half, what percentage of the current deficit is eliminated? (This ought to be good)

I'm saying you've set up a false premise for your argument – Smarter Than You This appears to be a cryptic response. If you have a point, I would love to hear it.

Exactly how many districts are there in Kansas City? Many of them are accredited with distinction. Nice try. You may want to actually think before you open your mouth the next time.

Ed, but before you start moralizing from the high road you should be sure of your footing – Smarter Than You So are you suggesting that the old and the poor should bear the brunt of deficit reductions, and the rich should be taxed less?

I suggest you try facts next time pinhead - Posted by: kevin | Let’s look at the facts kevin. The reason for the proposal to raise taxes is to increase revenue. Gary was making the point that all the republicans want to do is cut spending by reducing benefits to the old and the poor. A point made by Gary, which has been ignore on this board, is that cutting benefits to the old and poor without increasing revenue through tax increases on the very wealthy putting a disproportionate burden on old and poor in paying down the deficits. I would like to hear the argument on that. I would like to also address the reduction in the corporate rates with the reduction in loopholes idea that kevin brought up. Using Reagan as a guide the republicans have been pushing the idea for decades. The theory is that if rates are cut and loopholes are closed, revenue will be increased because more money will be freed up for investment. This in effect is an economic stimulus which republicans have claimed to be totally against. The flaw in the theory at this particular time is that corporations are sitting on near historic cash reserves. They already have cash on hand to invest and the profit levels of the major corporations over the last year have been fairly high. It would appear that corporations don’t need a tax break to make money under the current system. We must also remember that Reagan raised taxes more than he cut them, just not on the very wealthy. And, my last point. Historically, when loopholes have been eliminated in Washington they have been systematically restored by the same legislators that eliminated them. Going back to the first point, wouldn’t that put the majority of the burden for paying down the debt on the old and poor?

they are very much like you I am sure. Posted by: kevin | October 07, 2011 at 08:10 AM As I read posts by conservatives on this board, I find it interesting that most of what I hear is word for word renditions of what the conservative media said the day before, with a few personal insults thrown in toward anyone with a different opinion. Unfortunately these protesters are a little bit harder to define than the propaganda machines of the right try to make them. If one were to peel a layer deeper than the outer layer of the conservative media reports, they would find that this group of individuals is a diverse group with different reasons for their activism. To label them as “dirtbags” just because you think you disagree with them is a little extreme. I remember a group of individuals with diverse reasons for their activism staging protests not too long ago, and there did not seem to be this sense of outrage from the right. I guess if this group were as well funded by conservative coalitions and supported as actively by conservative action groups and media outlets, there wouldn’t be near the venom that seems to be pouring out here today

As I got older I started to notice that group did not allow questioning of their ideas and values. The new Liberals do not tolerate values that do not line up with theirs. They do not respect opposing viewpoints. They make accusations based on opinions and and ideals. They in fact demonize anybody who disagrees with them with a religious zeal. Posted by: Tarl | July 05, 2011 at 06:42 AM That’s funny. You could use the same definition for conservative/Tea Party. When talking about the fringe there is no tolerance, and that’s all that some of the zealots of this site want to talk about.

but with union rules, good luck with that.Posted by: Michael Middleton | June 20, 2011 at 08:27 AM I hate to tell you this, the Republican talking point that you reference is nothing more than just that. Union membership in this country is down to almost 10%. 85% of the teachers in Missouri do not belong to a union. Unions do not have the power that Republicans give to them, with the exception that they traditionally donate to Democratic candidates. The only thing that a union can do for teachers is to make sure that the “rules,” that govern all teachers, are applied fairly. why should I have to help pay the bill for their choice? It is parents' responsibility to prepare a child for school: Michael Middleton | June 20, 2011 at 08:27 AM The problem is that the vast majority of the people that you talk of live at or below the poverty level. Education has always been considered the great equalizer in this country. One of our strengths has always been that everyone has the right to the opportunity that education gives to the citizens of this country. What Mr. Middleton suggests is that the opportunity should be given now to only those who can afford it. Wow

I'm sorry KC Educator. Might I bring up the subject of "tenure"? – LRC One should rally look up the law before they use it to make a point. the Missouri Tenure Act limits the reasons for which a tenured teacher’s indefinite contract may be terminated to the following: (1) physical or mental condition unfitting him to instruct or associate with children; (2) immoral conduct; (3) incompetency, inefficiency or insubordination in the line of duty; (4) willful or persistent violation of, or failure to obey, the school laws of the state or the published regulations of the board of education of the school district; (5) excessive or unreasonable absence from performance of duties; or (6) conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. In other words, teachers can be fired easily if there is cause. Again, the only protection that a bad teacher has is the protection offered by an incompetent administrator who can not demonstrate cause. If the teacher is truly “bad”, there is more than enough avenues for that teacher to be fired.

That is an outright lie. - Ken Kindred What is Ken a relative of Dale’s? It would seem if Ken had proof of his claim he should have presented it. The fact is that unions have never saved a bad teachers job. If a bad teacher’s job was saved, it was done by a poor administrator who did their job worse.

What I am saying it is should be no different for a teacher than anyone else. Performance should determine who stays and who goes, regardless of time served. Zeno The law is quite clear. The problem is that most people don’t know the law and all they base their opinion on is something that a mostly ineffective administrator has said. There are poor teachers in schools, but who is to blame for the problem, the poor teacher or the ineffective administrators that give them good evaluations.

I'm sorry LL, I do not understand what you are saying. Union, non-union it doesn't matter. Nontenured teachers do not have a claim in court. If you are talking about tenured teachers, if they are fired without cause, they do have grounds for a suit just as a corporate executive has the same rights. The difference is the disparity in the salaries of the two and their ability to individually afford to pay for the suit.

Zeno, What is untouchable? Is untouchable having grounds to be terminated? That is the only thing that separates a probationary teacher and a tenured teacher. The question is, do you believe that a professional who is doing a superior job, by the standards set by their employer should be fired for no reason? That is the only question. And by the way kem, the evaluation is the measure of the effectiveness of the teachers. You’re right, they have the right to fire bad teachers, but I did not misspeak.

LL, It would be nice if there could be a law suit. Under school law however none of the teachers have a case. All are untenured so therefore the districts have the right to terminate for grounds, or for no grounds at all. Most of the teachers have excellent evaluations. That's the difference between tenured and nontenured teachers. The district can only fire teachers with poor evaluations if they are tenured. It's abuses of authority like this that make tenure a necessity.

Who cares where it is being done. It's our money that is being waisted here.

Many of the TFA teachers are good teachers. That is not the point. Using these teachers, as the program was supposed to work, to fill hard to find openings is a win win situation. The KCMSD is not using them this way. When you fire teachers, that by the districts own stadards, who are meeting or exceeding expectations there can only be one reason. TFA is paid for by grants. It costs the district almost nothing to use these teachers, and then when their contract is up they hire in a fresh batch. It's all about the money and who gets it. This superintendent is no different than the last twenty.

Several of the teachers that he fired were former TFA teachers brought in several years ago. What does that tell you about his goals

Those that can do, those that can't teach. Jack King How original. Next we will hear Nana nana nan - naaaaa. Recently there was legislation in Congress that would do what you suggest. It never made it to a full vote. You expressed what the problem is. The problem is that higher education is not affordable to most children today, whether it is in state tuition or not. That’s where we need to focus our energy.

We went in to kill or capture bin Laden and his aides. We failed. If we had completed this very targeted mission, it would have been very easy to withdraw from Afghanistan. The reason we failed in our mission is because our civilian leadership over ruled military plans and limited resources for the mission to begin planning and training for the invasion of Iraq. After the failure we changed the nature of the mission to "nation building". To this point we have failed again. Up until recently, the reason for the failure in Iraq was because the civilian leadership limited force size and resources for combat in Afghanistan to the point that our troops were too weakened to patrol or engage hostile forces, leaving the majority of the country in the hands of our enemies. I’m not excited about being stuck in Afghanistan, but if we leave now, our enemies will crawl out of the caves and pick up where they left off.