Granted, I’ve only been teaching in public schools for four years. I’d also like to add that I do think that public schools fail to “make the grade” for many children in many respects. But, what the hell does this guy know about what is going on in classrooms all throughout Arizona every day? What does he know about all of the teachers who have no lives because they bust their asses day and night to give their students the absolute best, most thorough, and most effective education that can be provided? More than likely, nothing. His comments totally devalue what hard-working teachers all throughout the state do every day by making a broad generalization based on… well, I don’t know what it’s based on. Statistics? These statistics aren’t referenced at all in his interview.

Public education could definitely use some work. A lot of work. But, the flaws in education have to do with a top-down system in which people who have absolutely no contact with the classroom are making really specific, really important decisions for the classroom. If David Schlosser is willing to make comments about a system that he probably has no direct contact with at all before he is elected, what kind of decisions will he be making for this institution after election. What kind of top-down bureaucratic bullshit will he throw into the classrooms to try and make kids smarter? I’m sure he is an expert on the subject.

I’m not trying to start any kind of beef with Frank for posting in support of Schlosser. I’m sure there are many things about him that may have been appealing. However, saying that kids come out of the public education system “dumber” than then they went in is completely ignoring/devaluing/silencing all of the hard work that teachers put into their work./life/passion. So I say fuck David Schlosser, and I am happy he wasn’t elected.

Frank, I think I sounded a bit put off as well, as I responded before 7am. On prop 207, i might’ve paraphrased the legislation to the point of problematic representation. But i do believe the idea is that if a business with a lot of money is turned down on a new development by whomever is in charge of deciding what kind of business can go there (it probably has nothing to do with a ‘neighborhood association’ whatever that is), than that business person can sue that legal body for damages. or whatever.

for example, if this law was in the books and flagstaff was smart and said, “a super walmart is bad for our community as well as every other community worldwide, we don’t want it in our town.” then walmart could’ve sued whoever was responsible for that decison. the city council, i suppose. the way i understand it, this is how one part of that legislation would work. basically it becomes a win/win for developers. i know there are other parts to this prop that might be really fantastic on their own, but this aspect is why i, unless i get new information, will vote no on it.

err, not house, bakery.

also Pope, you’ve heard me every day from 6-8am? Who do you think i am? I don’t get up untill 8 (:

Libertarians are not always for “amped up border security” however. The problem we see is not that the border is open, it’s that the immigration process is a complete mess, and because of that people chose to come illegally. It takes years and thousands of dollars to become a citizen. I’m not opposed to illegal immigration, and understand that these people are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. But, If the immigration process were a much easier affair, we would see a downturn in illegal immigration.

I am a bit confused about your information on 207 though. There are provisions in the proposition dealing with court cases. But it does not go after neighborhood associations, nor does it suggest that “the guy could sue the association for however much he thinks he’d make from the business”. The provision says that the “property owner is entitle to just compensation for the value of the property”, not the value the proper might have made if there was a buisness there. This protects guys like Bob:

Bob owns a bakery.
The city enacts a new zoning code saying that Bob’s area will now be exclusivly used for waste storage.
This makes the value of the property where Bob’s house sits very low.
Under 207, Bob would be entitled to recieve compensation for what the value of his property was.

You can find the propositions here: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/2006_Ballot_Proposition_Analyses/

These are without bias.

Short answer: YES on 106, NO on 105

They are competing propositions, meaning that whichever prop gets the most votes wins. Prop 106 is what conservationists, educators, progressives, and sensible people throughout the state have been trying to get passed for years. It does a couple main things:

1. Immediately conserve over 300,000 acres of land, and eventually almost 700,000 acres of land.
2. Requires state lands dept to work with local/regional planners to manage growth, determine which state lands get developed, etc.

Prop 105 is basically a sham; it was created by legislators at the last minute to compete with prop 106 and confuse voters. It is supported by developers who want every goddamn acre of the 9 million acres of state trust land to develop.

More info on prop 106: here.

Libertarians advocate small government, small taxes, individual freedom, and civil rights.

Seriously, vote for David Schlosser.

Also, what the fuck about 206? You keep talking about how certain initiatives are fascist and to vote against them, but then you say “vote no on 206″ and you become the fascist by telling people where they can and can’t smoke. 206 allows the OWNER of the bar to decide if they want smoking in THEIR bar. Who gives a shit if it’s sponsored by Philip Moris? Just like the eminent domain initiative; private property should be just that, and government should have no business in other people’s property.