Letter To School Superintendent In Kansas

Here's a letter I wrote to the superintendent of schools in the school district that includes my childrens' school. I have substituted the letter X for proper nouns, as identities of individuals and places are not necessary to the point of my letter.

Dear Mr. XXXX,

I was in the office at XXXX School yesterday, returning two of my children to school after an appointment at the eye doctor. One of the first people I noticed, because he was out of place, was a Mr. HXXXX, (I have forgotton his first name) who lives in town, but no longer has any children who attend this school. Not only did his name NOT appear on the sign-in sheet that you told me would remain in the office for any adult who visits the building but is not on the payroll; I am curious about the need for his volunteer services and his qualifications. My children cannot participate in certain sports, because you have spurned my offers to volunteer based on my popularity scores here in XXXX that have little to do with my character or other qualifications, which probably, by far, exceed the qualifications of other parents who volunteer at your school. Have you checked the criminal record of Mr. HXXXX? His two sons, who are both young adults, still live in his house, and I have personally heard them both discuss the use of illegal drugs. Mr. HXXXX was physically present when his sons were speaking. Apparently, Mr.HXXXX does not take prohibition laws seriously. After hearing those comments, I do not allow my daughter to even visit that home to buy Avon from his wife. I don't want my children in that type of environment. Also, I have seen him allow minors, his sons, when they were still in high school, to drink beer in his home. This is not the person I find appropriate to volunteer in the school, and share his "influence" with my children, thankyou very much. Also, since this is such a small town, and since at least one of Mr. HXXXX's children has experienced "run-ins" with the law in the past, in connection to violations of prohibition laws and alcohol, I will contend that your principal, Mr. DXXXX, was aware of this, yet welcomed him into the building anyway.

Since the rules apply stringently to yours truly, to the extent of her own children not being able to participate in sports because the adult/child ratio is unsafe in your school during these activities, and that does not bother you; I am curious to know why Mr. HXXXX, who violates the law in connection to children and alcohol in ways I would never even consider, is welcomed with open arms into your building. Would you please explain the bias to me? Also, why is he not required to sign in, as I do, whenever I enter your building? Why does his wife use your school as a venue for her Avon business? I sold Avon on the East Coast, and would never have considered a school building an appropriate place to dispense product and collect revenue for same. This takes the attention of teachers and other staff away from children and creates an atmosphere of business other than education. It is not safe for the students. Please make it stop.

I have one more question for you. Is this IP number, XXXX, in any way associated with computers in your school buildings? If so, you have at least one teacher who harrasses others for political reasons. My children and I should NOT KNOW where anyone on your staff stands on issues such as abortion, yet we do, and we should certainly not know for whom any of your teachers intends to vote! Please ask them to all be less obvious about their political stances.

Sincerely,
XXXX

............In all fairness, I should convey that the superintendent did respond to my letter, the same day he got it. He told me that the sign-in sheet in the office would be in use from now on, whether the local Kansas folk wished for that or not. He also told me that the Avon Lady would no longer be making stops at the school, as this is against policy for several reasons. I should add that the Avon Lady also never bothers to sign in at my childrens' school, and moves freely through the building as if she worked there or had children there. Neither apply to her.

The superintendent was not able to explain the inherent nastiness and unjust prejudism expressed by these people toward myself and other members of my family. He was not able to explain the constant pressure to vote for a presidential candidate who is not of my choosing. He was also not able to tell me why my children and I even know for whom most of these teachers intend to vote. He and I both agreed that if a child ever disappears from this particular school or is otherwise harmed there, the FBI will be VERY interested in the number of unofficially present adults in the school from day to day, and in their identities, activities, and criminal records. That said, it seems to me that persons who have unlawful recreational drugs in their homes from time to time, and persons who allow minors to drink alcoholic beverages in their homes, should take heed.

 

Omit Mitt Instead Of Getting Rid Of Teachers

Instead of getting rid of teachers, suppose Mitt Romney proposed eliminating some of the positions and legal vehicles that truly don't have an historic track record of providing any actual assisitance or value to the comunity or the population at large? Say, perhaps, those probation officers or DWI monitors that get paid to monitor cases after offenders have been paroled, or in some cases, when they have been given probation in instead of jail time? So many offenders reoffend; why not stop paying the salaries of those who do not prevent this, and find some other way to discourage recidivism? If we did not have high rates of recidivism, we would not need probation officers, so it does not really help to keep a probation officer employed if he maintains a good track record. In the probation officer's case, productivity is counterproductive.

While discussing the blissful elimination of ineffective probation officers, why not eliminate an entire legal vehicle, such as prohibition laws? We should probably continue the prohibition of drugs that are truly dangerous, such as certain prescription medicines, and we should certainly never allow drunk driving, but why is marijuana illegal? Since 1937, when it became illegal, whose life has been enhanced by keeping it unlawful? Hmmm? This prohibition law has not aided the average citizen in any way. It has, however; made gangs and drug cartels quite rich. Prohibition laws have also helped make the Mafia powerful. Oh....lets not forget, it also helps keep those ineffective probation officers employed.

The abolishment of prohibition laws would also free up our judicial system and allow it to be an actual judicial system, instead of a babysitting service for wayward adults. Taxpayors spend lots and lots of money on judicial stupidity every year on nonsense that involves..........drum roll..........marijuana. If we could save all this money and spend it on teachers, instead of doing what Mitt Romney wants to do; specifically, get rid of teachers, firefighters, and policemen, we would be investing in ourselves and our own communities. Bishop Romney wants to tell us that we cannot have those assets, and that we cannot use our own resources to invest in ourselves, and in our children. What would he do with our money? He hasn't told us. He is a bishop in his church, so it isn't really a big stretch to wonder if our money would probably bolster his church a lot more than it would bolster our nation.

If Mitt really wants to help America's economy, why not change the pay scale for elected positions? Do some of our elected officials make more than we, the people, can afford to pay them? Why isn't Mitt looking at that, instead of eyeing our schools from the standpoint of a vulture? Perhaps the position of president can even be served on a volunteer basis. We wouldn't have so many career politicians! The bishop really needs to start looking at ways to invest in the middle classes, rather than ways to eliminate the middle classes.

Here's a serious question: if Mitt really wants to cut the number of policemen, yet keep victimless crimes on our books, who is going to carry out the resulting and ongoing arrests? The FBI? The Coast Guard? His own elite bunch of Mormon goons? And, if he becomes president, will he serve the American people? Or does he see us all as potential employees or parishoners? Oh...wait a minute...certain minorities cannot become Bishop Romney's parishoners, can they?

Romney Favors Drug Cartels

I snagged this from Ruthie In The Sky.  If Romney is not even willing to consider the pros and cons of relaxing the prohibition laws, which deal with VICTIMLESS crimes, we have in the United States concerning marijuana, he is very clearly supporting the drug cartels who make money because of the prohibition laws, whether he is aware of it or not. Also, he was extreemly rude to the young lady who asked him the question. Worth my vote? Nope.

A Letter From Topeka

This morning, Chad Taylor, of the District Attorney's Office in Topeka, issued a letter to everyone about the fact that he does not prosecute most crime anymore. It is kind of wordy, so I will link you to it here, and I will just quote part of it. I don't think he really says anything of value to his constituents in the letter, anyway. We all know that he is just making a choice which he says is based on budget cuts, and most of us feel that it is a bad choice. The people who don't feel that it is okay to judicially ignore misdemeanors are petty criminals and domestic violence thugs. What's happening with them is this: the police arrest them and put them in jail, and within a certain amount of time, they get released, because the district attorney in Topeka never charges them with a crime, because there is not enough money in the budget to prosecute petty crimes any more.

Here's a tidbit from the letter that explains Chad Taylor's intentions the best:

In preparation for this policy change, my office discontinued the filing of any new city misdemeanors. Ethical and practical considerations required that we stop filing new criminal cases that we knew would have to be dismissed shortly once budget cuts were instituted and we no longer had the necessary personnel to prosecute these newly filed cases. Our office has continued prosecuting all previously filed city misdemeanors as well as any new misdemeanors that occur outside the city limits, but within Shawnee County.

There are several things that I find disturbing about this, among them is the idea that if I ran a business in Topeka, my insurance would probably go up, since the DA has very publicly stated that is it almost legal to steal there. A myriad of other crimes no longer have consequences, either. But what I find most disturbing is this..........domestic violence and child abuse are both usually misdemeanors. The victim has to present with fatal or near-fatal injuries for these crimes to become felonies. Guess what's happening with domestic violence thugs in Topeka now, friends.........Yes indeed......these creeps are getting arrested initially by cops who don't want to find corpses at the same addresses later on, after they stop the violence; but since Chad Taylor knows that it is a lot more cost effective, from a strictly fiscal point of view, to bury a domestic violence victim that to help her, or to bury or sell a child abuse victim than to help a family find other options, these offenders are getting released almost as quickly as they get arrested. How long will it take for someone in power to give the police a directive to stop intervening in domestic violence situations at all?

I asked this a couple of weeks ago on this blog, and I will ask it again. Wouldn't it have been a better idea, for the safety of the general public, if Chad Taylor had decided to stop prosecuting victimless crimes, instead? As a citizen, I am completely uninterested in sending someone to prison for years on end and limiting his or her opportunities forever with a permanant criminal record just because he or she took a bong hit somewhere, at the wrong place or time. As a taxpayor, I am completely uninterested in paying for the indefinate room and board for that type of "criminal", too. In fact, the biggest impact prohibition laws have had on our entire population is the criminalizing of people who would not otherwise have had encounters with our judicial system. Think of all the money Topeka could save it it didn't focus on bong hits. Nationwide, if we just loosened our grip on prohibition laws concerning marijuana (don't get me wrong, folks, I am NOT condoning drunk driving, opium dens, dirty needles, or bathtub gin!) we could effect the pleasant result of forcing the drug cartels to look for income elsewhere and lots of drug dealers would have to find gainful employment. Did Chad Taylor give this any thought?


                                                                                                      

                                  A "misdemeanor" hit.   Notice, also, the victim's gender. Any possible relevance to the gender of most domestic violence victims  and Chad Taylor's decision to shirk his duties at this particular juncture will have to wait for another post, though. Hopefully, Chad Taylor will stop this nonsense and start doing his job again, before I have to create another post.      
                                                  

Here, we have a "hit" that is usaully a felony, after our judicial system has gotton through with it, using your tax dollars and mine.

It's Legal To Commit A Misdemeanor In Topeka

I have known for quite some time that Kansas has a serious problem with lunatics making serious decisions, but now, authorities in Topeka are no longer using due process for misdemeanors. Only felonies, which must, at the direction of federal authorities, be prosecuted. No kidding. Chad Taylor, District Attorney of Shawnee County announced, "Under current constraints, we do not have the necessary resources to prosecute misdemeanors that occur in Topeka and simultaneously fulfill our statutory obligations. This decision will have no effect on felony crimes or crimes occurring outside of Topeka. We will continue to vigorously prosecute all felonies that occur in Shawnee County as well as misdemeanors that occur beyond the boundaries of Topeka"........ksnt

So what does this mean? Lots of sex offenses are misdemeanors. Does this mean that offenders can do whatever they want to any victim they choose, and just stop short of committing a felony? What about domestic violence? Is wife beating okay, now? Drunk driving is usually a misdemeanor, so is vandelism. What about child abuse? Can I key my neighbor's car when he parks in my spot? Can shoplifters loot the stores, as long as they only take so much at one time? I think I see insurance rates for running a business rising already.............

This is really a stupid idea. I think it would have been smarter if Chad Taylor had informed Topeka that he was going to ignore violations of prohibition laws, instead. Then, only victimless crimes would be ignored, and Shawnee County's judicial sytem would find it's productivity at an alltime high.....no pun intended! Oh wait........that can't happen. Victimless violations of prohibition laws are usually felonies, these days, while sexual assualts of children and domestic violence, even with fatal results, are usually misdemeanors.