Shakopee Valley News - Opinions - Comments

I totally agree with your

oldman — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:31:58 -0500

I totally agree with your position on Judicial selections. Here is some more liberal thinking to consider:

Background check - Mrs. Obama.....
Michelle Obama, wife of Democrat frontrunner Barack Obama, shocked a lot of people recently when she said this: FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFETIME I AM PROUD OF MY COUNTRY.' Wow! That takes my breath away.

Mrs. Obama is 44 years old, so for over roughly 24 years of 'adulthood,' taking her at her word, she has never been proud of our nation.

Is there a theme here? You may remember that last year Senator Obama said he refused to wear a flag lapel pin because it represented a 'substitute for true patriotism.' And what precisely is true patriotism? According to Senator Barack Hussein Obama, it is opposing the war in Iraq.

Apparently nothing America did from 1982 to 2008 caused her heart to swell with pride. Not our successful effort to defeat Soviet communism and liberate millions of people in Eastern Europe? Not our relief efforts around the world, through which we spent billions to help the downtrodden?

Not anything? When she learned with all the rest of us how her fellow citizens on United Flight 93 bravely fought back against jih adist hijackers and prevented another disaster on September 11th, did she not fill up with pride?

As Americans of all races and classes rallied together in defense of our nation in the aftermath of September 11th, did her spirit not jump with love for her homeland? Apparently not.

The Obamas are living examples of the American Dream. Both Michelle Obama and her husband have Ivy League degrees. They make a joint income of over One Million Dollars a year. They live lives that most ordinary Americans can only dream of.

Yet, Mrs. Obama, who wants to be First Lady, has been unable to find the pride in America that millions of ordinary Americans feel every day.

Sadly, her attitude is not rare among leftwing American elites. We are 'educating' millions of Americans to be Globalists first and foremost, and we are doing precious little about educating our children to be Proud and Unashamed Americans.

The Obamas are flying high politically right now, but I don't believe many Americans will want to cast their votes this November for a couple so out of touch with traditional American values.

'For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country,' Michelle Obama.....'What she meant was, this is the first time that she's been proud of the politics of America,' Barack Obama

HOWEVER, nowhere in there does she leave space for, allude to, or specify a reference to American politics.

She's a Princeton and Harvard educated lawyer, and she can't specify between her country and its politics???

ALSO, 'Why Is Michelle Obama's Princeton Thesis *Restricted* Until November 5th'?

1985 Princeton senior Thesis entitled: 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,'

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/theses/thesesid.asp?ID=9867

Princeton University Senior Theses Full Record

TITLE: Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community [Restricted until November 5, 2008] (96 pages).

AUTHOR: Michelle LaVaughn Robinson (1985), Sociology Department ADVISOR: Not available

LOCATED AT: Mudd Library.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama lamented that white professors and classmates always saw her as 'Black first and a student second.' She had surveyed alumni to see whether they sacrificed their commitment to other blacks on the altar of success, and foresaw for herself an uneasy future: 'further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.'...

As Michelle Obama wrote in her thesis introduction, 'My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'Blackness' than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong.'...

Michelle Obama was guided in her choice of thesis topic by a consuming concern that her success might compromise her black identity. As she wrote in her conclusion: 'I wondered whether or not my education at Princeton would affect my identification with the Black community. I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with Whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that Black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.'...

Michelle Obama's fears of losing touch with her roots without ever being embraced into the mainstream led her to promise, in her thesis introduction, 'to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community.'

Her thesis is the ONLY one on the 449-result long list *restricted until a specific date: November 5th*.

What's the significance of November 5th? Well, it's a Wednesday. OH, AND IT'S THE DAY AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION... !!!!!!

I've been a young rider in

kenlehman — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:54:55 -0600

I've been a young rider in Shakopee in the country before developement and in town on 4th av.

Later in years drove school bus in Minnneapolis, St. Paul and various suburbs.

I also have been vocal and active in education and school board politics.

I've heard the same ole story about needing more money "For the children" in the form of school levies.

The first to be cut, or last to be funded, are the classrooms and transportation in many cases.

I'm not saying Shakopee is the same way but it is typical of many districts nation wide and metro wide here in Minnesota.

Just something to keep a weary eye on.

As a driver, I hate having stops where the students at any age have to cross on busy streets or even high speed light traffic country roads.

It is too hard to see a tiny school bus with so little early warning with only 8 to 10 lights flashing and a tiny stop sign when you have a cell phone in your hand.

Some people aren't aware of icy conditions until they stop and end up careaning sideways toward students crossing after caressing a hill ( real life scenario).

Regular safety lectures paid off and they were paying attention ( students).

It comes down to regular emails, letters and phone calls as well as parents getting together to tackle these issues at the school board meetings.

In some cases politics is used at the expense of "The children" to get more money from you, only to be spent elsewhere.

You then have to get them where it hurts them and not "The children".

That is with taking the truth and nothing but the truth to the press.

It is reasonible and affordible to have a 1 mile policy, or less if there are safety issues, if the routes are efficently planned.

I may have ticked people off with these statements. I didn't make them for that reason.

These are simply my observations and experiences elsewhere.

You can see for yourself if any of them apply here and what actions are nessesary.

I will say research simular issues that were raised in Savage and Belle Plain just this same year.

Yea, we tried banning

kidjon — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:19:44 -0600

Yea, we tried banning alcohol and it did not work. The main reason it did not work is because alcohol had been legal to possess for decades. So, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Marihuana is scary because it is harder to detect that someone is under the influence of marihuana, unlike alcohol which there are obvious signs of intoxication.

Another thing about marihuana, is there is a segment of society that does not use it because it is illegal. These people are called law abiding citizens. If you make it legal, these people will be inclined to use it.

As far as the black market is concerned, it will not go away. Marihauna is easy to grow and you will still have dealers making money selling it. The only difference that will exist if marihuana is legalized, is that the government will be dealing the drug as well.

Medical marihuana exists in marinol, a pill form. It has THC just like the green stuff. These medical marihuana initiatives are being driven by people that just want to get high legally. People that have headaches, or back aches or other non descript pain can be given a "prescription" written by a doctor recommending medical marihuana. That patient can go to a drug dealer and buy "a 60 day supply" of marihuana (whatever that amount is). They can also grow a "60 day supply" of marihuana. Now, as it turns out, these "patients" are growing this marihuana and selling it to other people that have letters written by someone claiming to be a doctor. It is one big scam.

If someone is dying of cancer or AIDS and wants to ingest smoke into their lungs (and give themselves additional medical problems to deal with), fine go ahead. But if the medical marihuana initiative allows for anything more than terminal AIDS or cancer, you are only asking for problems.

Why would going against

sfiecke — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:28:20 -0600

Why would going against federal law require marijuana to be purchased by gangs? I would think if Minnesota legalized mairjuana for medical purposes, it would be somewhat regulated. If it truly is just a step away from legalization, this would actually take the market away from the gangs, wouldn't it? The reason drugs are so expensive is because of the risk of selling them. So legalized medical marijuana would likely be produced by Minnnesota farmers and sold in stores, decreasing the cost of mairjuana sold on the street, which would make it less lucrative for "gangs" to sell marijuana, which would lead to less violence that's generally associated with black market drug dealing. This would lead to fewer drug arrests, less people in jail/prison and relief for our congested court system. All around, everyone is a winner-- most importantly, us taxpayers who don't even use the drug, but feel the negative ramifications of the black market system.

Based on your argument, that

sfiecke — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:16:12 -0600

Based on your argument, that today's marijuana is different and would lead to more intoxicated drivers on the road, shouldn't we ban drinking? Alcohol is a lot more scarier of a drug because it has the potential for causing WAY more harm to people's lives-- especially innocent ones-- than marijuana.

You don't want the government regulating marijuana, but yet you say that today's marijuana is so much more addictive and dangerous than in previous years. I would think that would be an argument for legalizing the drug so the government could make sure it is of a safer quality. Right now, because of the black market system, marijuana users are taking a gamble on what they purchase. I assume they'd prefer to know what's in whatever they're smoking. I think the same goes for other illegal drugs.

Aren't a lot of the risks from illegal drugs caused by people taking drugs that had things in them they didn't realize? Wouldn't it be better to have the government- or some approved company-- producing and labeling the drugs? Plus, then you get away from all the dangers that go with drugs being traded on a black market system.

I have relatives in Washington and just recently visited there. I haven't heard anything negative about "medical marijuana" there. How does it "not work" there?

It has been legalized for

kidjon — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:21:58 -0600

It has been legalized for medical use out here in Washington for a few years. The people behind these medical marihuana initiatives do not care about anyone's medical issues, but they are people looking to legalize it just so they can get high legally.

The marihuana of today is not your daddy's marihuana from the 60's. It has a higher THC (about 15% to 40% THC) concentration and very addictive. It should be classified as a hallucinegen, it is that powerful. The last thing we need are more intoxicated drivers on the road.

As far as government regulating and taxing it, that's ridiculous. The government should not be in the drug dealing business. I say "NO" to "medical marihuana". It does not work in Washington or California, it sure won't work in MInnesota.

I definitely don't support

gordman — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:31:57 -0600

I definitely don't support marijuana legalization, this would be another niche for drug addicts to have easier access to this drug. Isn't there another medicine to replace it and don't create addiction? Right now my brother attends Narconon for drug rehabilitation for marijuana addiction.

I really have to thank this

FreedomGirl27 — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:31:21 -0500

I really have to thank this man. He is very brave in willing to stand behind such a student, and I hope that his house doesn't egged or pelted with gummy bears! I agree we should have the board members come in and take a look at what students are doing! Let them see for themselves just what the media has done to this new generation.

Many of my friends have

Ruth Anne Maddox — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:44:06 -0500

Many of my friends have been wearing and raving about Crocs for years.

I've never been a real fashion-forward kind of gal but I recently had an opportunity to try a pair on and, I must admit, they were very comfy. However, I didn't buy them because I felt like I was looking down at Minnie Mouse's feet at the end of my legs -- they just look so much bigger than the size I wear (yes I tried the correct size).

I don't wear a lot of jeans and I can't see Crocs matching a whole lot of my work clothes so I didn't feel like dishing out $30 for them ($40 for the flip-flop version). I'm not completely turned off by them, though so I'm not going to say "never."

Alright Gores, I find your

shawn Hogendorf — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:22:06 -0500

Alright Gores, I find your column witty, well written and entertaining, but the silence you have recently broken on your opinion of Crocs demands my response.

I am happy to read that you are open-minded enough to accept people’s right to wear “ugly” shoes and “afflict” your eyes in the same fashion that “secondhand smoke afflicts my [your] lungs” because I would have a hard time living one more day without your approval.

I’m “that guy.”

I wear Crocs nearly everyday.

Strangely enough, I am not a “trendy” guy. The rest of my wardrobe can speak to that, since my hideous shoes scream, “Look at me, I’m trendy.”

I agree the shoes are not the easiest on a set of eyes, but for those of us who enjoy comfort (and I have never wore them to a wedding or fished for a complement on my shoes) they are great.

It’s too bad that wearing holey shoes in a casual setting can cause an innocent bystander so much pain.

By the way, thank you for being so considerate that you will sacrifice your comfort so my eyes don’t have to be afflicted by the site of you in your old, holey Zubaz.

See Gores, some people will go with function over style. I know this is a hard concept to wrap one’s brain around, but it is true.

I am one of those people, and am pleased to know you won’t judge me.

Another misconception about Croc wearers is that we use the word uber.

You chose to use the word uber, please don’t stereotype me as a man who uses that ridiculous “word.” I hate that “word,” wear Crocs on a daily basis and can honestly say the only time uber has ever come from my being is in this response.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

If I happen to be sitting next to some old guy with black tube socks and a braided belt wearing similar shoes as myself, it will be a great conversation piece.

If I am fortunate enough to be near someone who doesn’t care what others think enough to pull off black tube socks, a braided belt and Crocs, I’m guessing he will be quite the interesting character.

When I’m in that situation, I’m sure that my hideous shoes will demand that my feet remain comfortable.

After my Crocs remind me how comfortable my feet are, I will take a deep breath, start using the word uber and remember that I am far too “trendy” to care what others think of me.

That is, of course, if they judge people on their shoes.

Rowland, I have no problem

Justmeagain — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:33:01 -0500

Rowland,

I have no problem with my daughter walking, EXCEPT in the very cold weather with wind chills. My major problem with the high school walking is the inconsistancy of the school's bussing policy (see my previous post regarding the policy from the school website)

2 miles (1/2 mile to bus stops) is reasonable - it was that same distance for me in my high school in Pennsylvania (I had an exception - asthma and NO SIDEWALK in front of my house) but I did walk sometimes.

The school district is not adhering to their own policies. Shakopee does not have a good public transportation system as an alternate especially in bad weather.

We have moved closer to the new high school, but I am still having an issue with the walking because of the extreme speeds on 17th Avenue. NO CROSSWALKS except at the corners of Spenser and Townline, none in front of the school especially for the development to the north of the school where there are students living there. Most drivers don't stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, even though it is a law to stop. Walkers, don't make sure traffic has stopped, walk outside of the crosswalk markings and or don't cross using the crosswalks.

The speed on 17th is 40, most drivers travel faster. The street is also four lanes wide which is difficult to cross with the traffic that the school is going to bring once it is opened.

There is only 2 streets (Spenser and Marchall) that have a walking portion of the bridge crossing US 169.

I am worried someone is going to get hurt. I agitated that the school bussing policy is not being applied properly.

Going to the old high school was a risky proposition in the mornings to begin with with speeders, busses and walkers. The parking lot (drivers vying for a spots) resembled at car crash derby.

I at first thought that

Rowland — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:01:10 -0500

I at first thought that there was some validity to the parents concerns, 4 miles- wow- that sure sounds like a long way.

As a reasonability check I used Google maps to determine how far I walked to elemenatry school when I was living north of Boston MA, the distane-- 1.1 miles each way.

Granted, when it had just snowed my one car family managed to get us rides, but I think that with all the concerns about obesity in our nation and the length of time the young adults have to work on their stamina, I have no problem with the distance.

Here are the end points for all you doubters:
20 Marie Dr, Wilmington, MA 01887
to
227 Woburn Street, Wilmington MA

http://www.wilmington.k12.ma.us/

The 2-mile distance IS new

tgilbertsen — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:25:32 -0500

The 2-mile distance IS new for this school location. This is a new situation. Many kids will have to walk down unlit walkways & cross busy intersections (79 & Vierling, Marschall & 17, Fuller & 17, etc). Saying that "other school districts have this policy" sounds a lot like my teenager telling me "other parents are letting their kids do it." Doesn't make it right. Four miles every single day is TOO FAR. On a NICE day, it's too far...never mind the middle of winter at 7 in the morning. Why don't the school board members park two miles away from their workplaces & walk to their office for just one week. In January.
I know the school board just figures that parents will figure out some other way to get their kid to school, be it getting a ride from someone, or rearranging their own schedules. This is not our responsibility, nor is it possible for many people, especially with the later start time. My understanding is that there will be NO buses for high schoolers all the way up to First Avenue! You've got to be kidding.
Why doesn't the school board poll the citizens and parents? How many of the parents would mind if we took some of the money allocated for the new school & put it towards a few more busses?

Fuller Street was considered

chuck.berg — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:53:05 -0500

Fuller Street was considered to be a non-hazardous route provided the city make some agreed upon changes to paths, signage and adjustments to the road markings. If this does not happen, the area you specify will most likely be outside the 2-mile high school walking distance. The 2 mile distance for high-school students is not new for this year. It's been that distance for many years. In fact, many of our surrounding school districts have that same 2 mile distance for all of their schools, not just high school. Many also do not make exceptions for what might be hazordous situations. The only distance adjusted was that for the Middle School on Marschall which was reduced from 1 mile to 3/4 of a mile.

Here's the policy from the

Justmeagain — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:02:45 -0500

Here's the policy from the School's website: (note the loopholes)

Shakopee Public Schools Transportation Policy
The district’s transportation policy, updated in June 2007, provides for the following:

Students in grades 10-12 will be transported if they live 2 miles or more from Shakopee High School.
Students in grades 8-9 will be transported if they live 1 mile from Shakopee Junior High School.
Students in grades 6-7 will be transported if they live three-quarters of 1 mile or more from Shakopee Middle School.
Students in grades K-5 will be transported if they live one-half mile from the building that serves their attendance area.
All public and parochial kindergarten students will be transported to and from school at noon.

Transportation will be provided for students who would have to walk on a road that has no sidewalk, walking path, trail or full-width, paved shoulder and has a speed limit of more than 40 miles per hour.

The Presidental area has no sidewalks, or full width shoulder on Marystown - and anyhow the posted speed is above 40 mph, the walking path is clear down on Vierling and Adams/Marystown. So explain to me why no bus for Presidental area?)