- May 3, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
Enough is enough: No more money for teachers
Dear Editor:
I am so tired of school teachers and administrators crying poor-mouth and sticking out their hands for more and more of my money. What about the idea of doing more with less, like most of us have to do in this recession?
These so-called "overworked and underpaid" teachers who actually work only about 180 days a year, after summers off, school vacations, the odd day off or "early release,” and now get bonuses for doing the jobs they were hired to do in the first place, have the gall to complain about contributing to their own pensions like the majority of American workers. Their constant lament that they have so much work to take home doesn't impress me. Get your work done at work, like everyone else in the workforce.
And as far as Ms. Conklin's comment that the proposed increase in the county millage rate amounts to "only a cup of coffee,” I can't afford the luxury of a $1.99 cup of coffee every day; I make my own coffee at home and take it to work. Ms. Conklin should come back to ground and try doing more with less, like everyone else.
Richard Calderwood
Palm Coast
School Board is at it again: asking for more money
Dear Editor:
The Flagler County School Board members and their predecessors for the last 25 years are the slickest, most conniving bunch of sharpies I have ever encountered. When it comes to raising money, they put Jesse James to shame.
Not only did they just con the people in Flagler out of a sales tax increase (that has no real purpose) in the last election — now they are getting a special election to increase school property taxes, and they are very ambiguous about where this $3.2 million per year is going.
According to Colleen Conklin, it has something to do with buying coffee, but what she says is usually open to interpretation. I would suggest this money be used to find out why the black children aren’t learning anything and, while they are at it, why the white children aren’t doing much better.
If we have any oriental children, I would take a good long look at what they are doing: I think it's called studying!
Douglas Glover
Palm Coast
Second Amendment debate stirred up by recent shooting
Dear Editor:
While I was completing my workout at a local health club last month, I heard three other members discussing how President Obama was going to take away their guns. The discussion was in regard to the shooting death of the attendant at the Mobil gas station on State Road 100 a few days earlier.
One gentleman was saying in a rather belligerent voice: “He’s not going to take away my guns. It’s my right!” He added something I had not even heard from the NRA: “Besides, more people are killed in car accidents by cell phones than guns.”
Contrary to popular opinion, the Second Amendment does not give an individual the right to “keep and bear arms.” The “right (of an individual) to keep and bear arms” was an opinion handed down by the Roberts Supreme Court. By a one-vote margin, the court changed the “law of the land” from that which was written by the Founding Fathers. (The Second Amendment was ratified Dec. 15, 1791, as a part of the first 10 amendments.)
The Second Amendment does not include the word “individuals.” The Second Amendment gives “people” in a militia the “right to keep and bear arms.” Incidentally, those “arms” about which that Second Amendment was written were muskets.
The “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is relegated by the Second Amendment to people in a militia, i.e., a locally organized citizen’s group. This Amendment does not relegate “the right to keep and bear arms” to an individual absent of, or outside of, an organized militia.
The opinion that gave individuals the right to keep and bear arms was agreed upon by five out of the four members of the Roberts Supreme Court by ignoring the first 13 words of that amendment. The rationalization agreed upon by the 5-4 majority in the DC v. Heller case was that the first 13 words represents a “prefatory clause” while the rest is an “operative clause.” According to the five-member majority, that “prefatory clause” — that was written and approved of by the Founding Fathers — was ruled superfluous.
Russell A. Pizer
Palm Coast
Increase yellow-light time at camera intersections
Dear Editor:
I read the letter that stated Hilary Chester rolled past the red light “at five miles per hour” and received a ticket.
Here are some quotes from Dr. Barbara Orban, of the University of South Florida and an expert on the subject of red light cameras. They dispel the myths held by those who believe, as typified by a letter from two weeks ago, “why should careless drivers get away with running red lights and endangering the lives of responsible drivers? They should be caught and made to pay a fine.” This assumes that all drivers who don't stop on time are deliberate lawbreakers.
The following is the statement from Dr. Orban:
“My colleagues and I support increasing the yellow light timing by one second over the standard formula at camera sites. The standard formula assumes a one-second reaction time to braking, which is the average. Since half the population is likely to be above the average (including elderly drivers), these drivers will receive a ticket when in the zone where they cannot stop in time (only because their reaction time exceeds the one second average) and they then enter the intersection a fraction of a second after the light turns red and receive a ticket.
“Lengthening the yellow light timing by one-second has been found to reduce violations (and camera tickets) by 70-80%, thus not penalizing drivers simply because they cannot achieve the ‘average’ reaction time to braking. If the goal is to reduce violations, the yellow light timing at camera sites should be increased, which typically renders camera programs unprofitable.”
Every major research study on red-light cameras has reported an increase in rear-end crashes.
Bill Campion
Palm Coast
Put an officer on a platform, remove red light cameras
Dear Editor:
The solution to the red light camera problem is simple. During the busy hours at crucial intersections, the traffic signal is turned off, and a policeman is assigned to these intersections to direct the traffic.
There are times when policemen are stationed on lonely roads to ticket speeders. This practice does not correct anything, except the issuing of tickets!
There should be a raised platform in the middle of all of these trouble intersections. A regular traffic officer could man the platform, and the red light camera would be history. In that way, a little common sense could avert the road rage that results from the cameras.
Palm Coast has many senior citizens who drive very carefully. Give them a break. We are talking about seconds, not minutes.
Amerigo Cimino
Palm Coast
Running a red light is running a red light
Dear Editor:
Mr. Chester, in your March 20 letter, one thing that said it all: You stated that the camera "caught me rolling five miles per hour through the red light.”
And you don't think this was wrong? You don't think you should have been fined? It sounds like you think a person running the red light at 30 mph is different from you running it at 5 mph. Running the red light is running the red light. That is what the cameras are for. I am not a fan of the cameras, but they do make people think and slow down.
Anne Schaefer
Palm Coast
