Comments by myshortpencil
Posted on November 24 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who's the bully, here? Who's the racist? Why it's the school district, of course.
Notice that school districts have been given the power to punish students not just based on the feelings of others, but based on how the district believes others SHOULD or COULD reasonably feel in the situation. When government takes the power to punish citizens based on real AND reasonably imagined feelings, anything and everything can be punished. It's an abomination, flatly Un-American and unconstitutional. Citizens, including students, are entitled to reasonable notice before they can be punished for their actions. No such notice was given, here. The punishment is unlawful.
Moreover, the punishment is an insult to the student who consented to be in the photograph. It implicitly charges the student with using poor judgment and with conspiracy to create an inappropriate and racist advertisement. What do you think of that?
NOTE TO GAZETTE: Please fix the "line feeds" in comments. Writers cannot make paragraphs, at least not with a Firefox browser.
Posted on November 11 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We built near oceans and rivers during a relatively cool period in our climate history. The waters were no where near their peak levels. Whether or not the planet is warming now due to man is irrelevant. It is almost certain to warm again for reasons having nothing to do with man, and that means at some point in our future, oceans, lakes and rivers will be a lot higher. The only rational response is to begin a retreat from the waterfront with the assumption that oceans will be 20 to 100 feet higher sometime during the next several hundred years.
Posted on November 11 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I draw a different conclusion, Russ. We simply built too close to water. The only rational solution is to begin the abandonment of waterfront properties with the assumption that water levels will rise 20 to 100 feet over the next few hundred years. Failing to do that assures continued loss and misery.
Posted on November 10 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Schenectady doesn't need more money for its schools. Even with the "cuts" of the last 4 years, it spends way more than the national average. What it needs is a reasonable cost structure, which it moved toward in the last teachers' contract, but didn't move nearly as far or as fast as it should have. Schenectady teacher compensation is at least 30% above the fair market value of the services provided compared to NY private school teachers and public school teachers around the nation and the world.
Posted on November 6 at noon (Suggest removal)
It's hard to understand the vehemency of liberals that coastal cities weren't built too close to the water during a relatively cold period of our climate history. NYC will eventually be flooded beyond use as the earth warms -- whether through natural forces, man-made, or both. The cheapest way out of this mess is to begin moving coastal cities inland, NOW. A few million years ago, Antarctica had much less ice than it does today. The oceans were much higher. Currently, the Earth's magnetic field appears to be weakening. That, by itself, will likely cause climate change through warming. Climate change is normal. If humans do not want to keep fighting the planet and spending lots of money rebuilding vulnerable coastal areas, they'll move the coastal cities inland, regardless of what they believe about the causes of climate change.
Posted on October 27 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's right. Take from the poor to pay teachers $100,000 for 10 months work. It makes perfect sense.
Of course, the Gazette editors write opinions without facts. Exactly how much would it increase the property taxes of teachers and the like to provide some relief to the poor? My educated guess is far less than the size of the annual tax increase the district gets.
The educated elite -- Gazette editors included -- are bound and determined to preserve their status, even if it means taking advantage of the poor. You people are pathetic.
The exemption should be raised to the maximum permitted by law. I'll gladly have my property taxes increased to pay for it far sooner than I would to increase the salaries of educators, which are objectively 20% higher than the free market rate.
To be clear, the exemption would not benefit me. It would raise my taxes. I am not advocating for a tax break for myself.
Posted on October 17 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't waste your time with Gazette editors. Go read the ultra liberal Times Union editorial on this issue at http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/articl...
"Sure, an extra 10 bucks isn't so much money. But the insult is that a death certificate or a birth certificate tend to be records that people typically have to have when they have to have them. This idea reeks of taking unfair advantage of people."
It's flat out unethical to take advantage of the dead and the mourning, especially when death certificates are required by other levels of government. What a scam.
Posted on October 15 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Get some ethics. Death certificates should be provided at cost. What is wrong with the governing class?
Posted on October 14 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would, that when you pass on, your body be preserved and displayed in an auto-icon at the Gazette for all to marvel at the greatest opinionator in the whole of Schenectady, likely for all time. Best wishes, Mr. Strock. Adieu.
Posted on October 13 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The fence was illegal but an ugly pile of dirt isn't. Swell.