As we reported over the weekend, the Fischers will file suit against the Davis Joint Unified School District this week in a dispute stemming from the perceived failure by the school district to properly deal with an harassment incident.
Last night’s Davis Enterprise contained some of the details of that suit. Among the demands included: in-home tutoring for the junior high school district, institution of a mandatory suspension for all students making homophobic comments, appoint a nondistrict neutral third party (“other than Harper Principal David Inns”) to monitor and implement a zero-tolerance program toward homophobia, and finally to pay a sum of $100,000 damages for failure to follow California law.
Mr. Fischer’s son has not been in school now in well over a month. He was pulled out on October 31 following incidents of harassment that resulted in the suspension of two students, detention for a number of others, and no action toward a larger number of more minor participants. The Fischers do not believe that these students received a punishment commensurate with the offense.
The key concern at this point is that the student was harassed on two different days when he returned to school.
The school has recommended several alternatives including independent study. However, the family believes that independent study would be a blemish on his academic record that could prevent him from going to law school which is his goal.
Park Consultants will be revisited by Davis City Council…
Just not last night.
As we suspected last week, Saylor’s vote last week to take no action on an item that would hire a park consultant for $75,000 was a parliamentary maneuver that would have allowed him to bring up the item for reconsideration. He mentioned this at last night’s city council meeting, but Mayor Sue Greenwald in a rare moment of chivalry pointed out to Saylor that if he brought this up for a vote this week, he would lose. Saylor apparently hadn’t thought through the ramifications of his requesting a vote of reconsideration with Asmundson still in the Philippines. Although he did rather clumsily backtrack on the vote, suggesting that he didn’t want a vote, only a clarification on the rule. Greenwald probably would have been better served allowing him to bring it up and then killing the motion. Hopefully, Saylor will remember this act of chivalry.
Aggie Column Yesterday Misleading on Dixon Downs Suit
While I have not made up my mind on whether or not I support the city’s lawsuit against Dixon, I do think that accuracy in reporting is an important quality. The aggie as we have printed in the past has made serious errors in their coverage, and they do so again yesterday in their op-ed piece excoriating the city about its lawsuit.
They write:
“The city of Davis should work with Dixon in its efforts to mitigate the impacts of the new project rather than file legal suits that will tie up the process for an unreasonable amount of time.”
In fact, the City sent City Manager Bill Emlen and City Attorney Harriet Steiner to Dixon City Council Meetings in order to express their concerns. They received no response to the public statements. These appearances followed numerous attempts to contact the City of Dixon through written correspondence.
Whatever you can accuse the City of Davis of doing in this case, they made a large effort to work with the City of Dixon and alert them to their concerns and it was the City of Dixon who failed to respond. The City felt it had little choice but to sue at this point. As I said, I’m not necessarily in agreement with that decision to sue, but that has nothing to do with City of Davis failing to try to work with Dixon.
Students and other readers unfamiliar with this issue who read that will undoubtedly come away with the faulty conclusion that the City of Davis was negligent in its attempts to communicate, while nothing could be further from the truth.
Iraq Study Group: Bush’s Policy in Iraq ‘Not Working’
CNN reports: “President Bush’s policy in Iraq “is not working,” the Iraq Study Group said in releasing its long-awaited report.”
In other news, the sky is blue and the sun is hot. Glad we figured that one out.
–Doug Paul Davis reporting
Another bit of news
The Vice President’s daughter Mary Cheney announced she is pregnant. If we lived in a perfect world that would not be news – actually no one would be interested except family and friends.
Of course the reason the story is in the news is that Mary is openly Gay. I assume the reason the story was released was because Mary wanted people to know that Gay families exist and the information might help other Gay families.SAH
Another bit of news
The Vice President’s daughter Mary Cheney announced she is pregnant. If we lived in a perfect world that would not be news – actually no one would be interested except family and friends.
Of course the reason the story is in the news is that Mary is openly Gay. I assume the reason the story was released was because Mary wanted people to know that Gay families exist and the information might help other Gay families.SAH
Another bit of news
The Vice President’s daughter Mary Cheney announced she is pregnant. If we lived in a perfect world that would not be news – actually no one would be interested except family and friends.
Of course the reason the story is in the news is that Mary is openly Gay. I assume the reason the story was released was because Mary wanted people to know that Gay families exist and the information might help other Gay families.SAH
Another bit of news
The Vice President’s daughter Mary Cheney announced she is pregnant. If we lived in a perfect world that would not be news – actually no one would be interested except family and friends.
Of course the reason the story is in the news is that Mary is openly Gay. I assume the reason the story was released was because Mary wanted people to know that Gay families exist and the information might help other Gay families.SAH
CNN reports: “President Bush’s policy in Iraq “is not working,” the Iraq Study Group said in releasing its long-awaited report.”
In other news, the sky is blue and the sun is hot. Glad we figured that one out.
What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.
If Bush could bring himself to accept that 1) our presence in the heart of that country is not helping matters and 2) that things are not going to settle down there if we just continue to do what we have been doing for the last couple years, then maybe he would adopt a more sensible policy.
My opinion right now is that we need to shift from a mode of “winning” the war to one where we “contain” the damage and threat from the war. While I am no military expert, I have heard others (who know military stuff) suggest that we could do better (at a much lower price in terms of men and materiel) by withdrawing all of our troops from the areas where most of the violence is now going on (Baghdad and a few other provinces) and redeploying a smaller force to the borders of the country and to the Kurdish area (where we are welcome).
Once redeployed, we (supposedly) could prevent the incursion of neighboring countries and the importation of some weapons and we could protect our friends, the Kurds.
At the same time, the “containment” strategy would include 1) talking directly with all of the neighboring countries (including Iran), with the goal that we could diplomatically prevent the Iraq civil war from becoming a region-wide war and 2) talking with all of our NATO allies with the goal of using NATO forces (or UN forces) to help to physically prevent the spread of the war. The non-US NATO forces would be used entirely outside of Iraq, in places like Kuwait, Turkey, and in the Persian Gulf.
If Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia signed on to a “containment” approach, or at least agreed to not disrupt it, and the NATO countries agreed to participate in it (outside of the country), then it would seem more likely to me that we could contain the inevitable violence from the civil war.
Of course, my assumption is that there is nothing we can do to stem the sectoral violence that is now raging. In fact, even though I believe that our presence is a reason why many Iraqis have been so uncivilized and bellicose, I expect that our quitting the center of Iraq will result in a tenfold increase in the violence. While now there are dozens of innocents being killed every day, that will probably increase to hundreds if not thousands. I don’t want that to happen. But I cannot see any reasonable way we can stop it. It just makes no sense for us to continue what we have heretofore been doing.
I also assume that at some point, maybe 3-4 years down the road, the civil war (once we get out of the way) will burn itself out. After that, I suspect that some anti-democratic, authoritarian, anti-modern, theocratic regime will take charge, and it will probably be aligned with Iraq. We’ll just have to wait and see and deal with what comes when it comes.
CNN reports: “President Bush’s policy in Iraq “is not working,” the Iraq Study Group said in releasing its long-awaited report.”
In other news, the sky is blue and the sun is hot. Glad we figured that one out.
What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.
If Bush could bring himself to accept that 1) our presence in the heart of that country is not helping matters and 2) that things are not going to settle down there if we just continue to do what we have been doing for the last couple years, then maybe he would adopt a more sensible policy.
My opinion right now is that we need to shift from a mode of “winning” the war to one where we “contain” the damage and threat from the war. While I am no military expert, I have heard others (who know military stuff) suggest that we could do better (at a much lower price in terms of men and materiel) by withdrawing all of our troops from the areas where most of the violence is now going on (Baghdad and a few other provinces) and redeploying a smaller force to the borders of the country and to the Kurdish area (where we are welcome).
Once redeployed, we (supposedly) could prevent the incursion of neighboring countries and the importation of some weapons and we could protect our friends, the Kurds.
At the same time, the “containment” strategy would include 1) talking directly with all of the neighboring countries (including Iran), with the goal that we could diplomatically prevent the Iraq civil war from becoming a region-wide war and 2) talking with all of our NATO allies with the goal of using NATO forces (or UN forces) to help to physically prevent the spread of the war. The non-US NATO forces would be used entirely outside of Iraq, in places like Kuwait, Turkey, and in the Persian Gulf.
If Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia signed on to a “containment” approach, or at least agreed to not disrupt it, and the NATO countries agreed to participate in it (outside of the country), then it would seem more likely to me that we could contain the inevitable violence from the civil war.
Of course, my assumption is that there is nothing we can do to stem the sectoral violence that is now raging. In fact, even though I believe that our presence is a reason why many Iraqis have been so uncivilized and bellicose, I expect that our quitting the center of Iraq will result in a tenfold increase in the violence. While now there are dozens of innocents being killed every day, that will probably increase to hundreds if not thousands. I don’t want that to happen. But I cannot see any reasonable way we can stop it. It just makes no sense for us to continue what we have heretofore been doing.
I also assume that at some point, maybe 3-4 years down the road, the civil war (once we get out of the way) will burn itself out. After that, I suspect that some anti-democratic, authoritarian, anti-modern, theocratic regime will take charge, and it will probably be aligned with Iraq. We’ll just have to wait and see and deal with what comes when it comes.
CNN reports: “President Bush’s policy in Iraq “is not working,” the Iraq Study Group said in releasing its long-awaited report.”
In other news, the sky is blue and the sun is hot. Glad we figured that one out.
What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.
If Bush could bring himself to accept that 1) our presence in the heart of that country is not helping matters and 2) that things are not going to settle down there if we just continue to do what we have been doing for the last couple years, then maybe he would adopt a more sensible policy.
My opinion right now is that we need to shift from a mode of “winning” the war to one where we “contain” the damage and threat from the war. While I am no military expert, I have heard others (who know military stuff) suggest that we could do better (at a much lower price in terms of men and materiel) by withdrawing all of our troops from the areas where most of the violence is now going on (Baghdad and a few other provinces) and redeploying a smaller force to the borders of the country and to the Kurdish area (where we are welcome).
Once redeployed, we (supposedly) could prevent the incursion of neighboring countries and the importation of some weapons and we could protect our friends, the Kurds.
At the same time, the “containment” strategy would include 1) talking directly with all of the neighboring countries (including Iran), with the goal that we could diplomatically prevent the Iraq civil war from becoming a region-wide war and 2) talking with all of our NATO allies with the goal of using NATO forces (or UN forces) to help to physically prevent the spread of the war. The non-US NATO forces would be used entirely outside of Iraq, in places like Kuwait, Turkey, and in the Persian Gulf.
If Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia signed on to a “containment” approach, or at least agreed to not disrupt it, and the NATO countries agreed to participate in it (outside of the country), then it would seem more likely to me that we could contain the inevitable violence from the civil war.
Of course, my assumption is that there is nothing we can do to stem the sectoral violence that is now raging. In fact, even though I believe that our presence is a reason why many Iraqis have been so uncivilized and bellicose, I expect that our quitting the center of Iraq will result in a tenfold increase in the violence. While now there are dozens of innocents being killed every day, that will probably increase to hundreds if not thousands. I don’t want that to happen. But I cannot see any reasonable way we can stop it. It just makes no sense for us to continue what we have heretofore been doing.
I also assume that at some point, maybe 3-4 years down the road, the civil war (once we get out of the way) will burn itself out. After that, I suspect that some anti-democratic, authoritarian, anti-modern, theocratic regime will take charge, and it will probably be aligned with Iraq. We’ll just have to wait and see and deal with what comes when it comes.
CNN reports: “President Bush’s policy in Iraq “is not working,” the Iraq Study Group said in releasing its long-awaited report.”
In other news, the sky is blue and the sun is hot. Glad we figured that one out.
What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.
If Bush could bring himself to accept that 1) our presence in the heart of that country is not helping matters and 2) that things are not going to settle down there if we just continue to do what we have been doing for the last couple years, then maybe he would adopt a more sensible policy.
My opinion right now is that we need to shift from a mode of “winning” the war to one where we “contain” the damage and threat from the war. While I am no military expert, I have heard others (who know military stuff) suggest that we could do better (at a much lower price in terms of men and materiel) by withdrawing all of our troops from the areas where most of the violence is now going on (Baghdad and a few other provinces) and redeploying a smaller force to the borders of the country and to the Kurdish area (where we are welcome).
Once redeployed, we (supposedly) could prevent the incursion of neighboring countries and the importation of some weapons and we could protect our friends, the Kurds.
At the same time, the “containment” strategy would include 1) talking directly with all of the neighboring countries (including Iran), with the goal that we could diplomatically prevent the Iraq civil war from becoming a region-wide war and 2) talking with all of our NATO allies with the goal of using NATO forces (or UN forces) to help to physically prevent the spread of the war. The non-US NATO forces would be used entirely outside of Iraq, in places like Kuwait, Turkey, and in the Persian Gulf.
If Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia signed on to a “containment” approach, or at least agreed to not disrupt it, and the NATO countries agreed to participate in it (outside of the country), then it would seem more likely to me that we could contain the inevitable violence from the civil war.
Of course, my assumption is that there is nothing we can do to stem the sectoral violence that is now raging. In fact, even though I believe that our presence is a reason why many Iraqis have been so uncivilized and bellicose, I expect that our quitting the center of Iraq will result in a tenfold increase in the violence. While now there are dozens of innocents being killed every day, that will probably increase to hundreds if not thousands. I don’t want that to happen. But I cannot see any reasonable way we can stop it. It just makes no sense for us to continue what we have heretofore been doing.
I also assume that at some point, maybe 3-4 years down the road, the civil war (once we get out of the way) will burn itself out. After that, I suspect that some anti-democratic, authoritarian, anti-modern, theocratic regime will take charge, and it will probably be aligned with Iraq. We’ll just have to wait and see and deal with what comes when it comes.
… and it will probably be aligned with Iraq.
Make that: “… and it will probably be aligned with Iran.”
… and it will probably be aligned with Iraq.
Make that: “… and it will probably be aligned with Iran.”
… and it will probably be aligned with Iraq.
Make that: “… and it will probably be aligned with Iran.”
… and it will probably be aligned with Iraq.
Make that: “… and it will probably be aligned with Iran.”
“What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.”
This is really emblematic of the entire failure of the situation–Bush never listened to the people outside his administration who believed going in was a mistake, that Iraq was not an actual threat.
He’s never adhered to the idea that there were problems.
His failure to acknowledge mistakes has brought to the unmistakable disaster that we have now.
“What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.”
This is really emblematic of the entire failure of the situation–Bush never listened to the people outside his administration who believed going in was a mistake, that Iraq was not an actual threat.
He’s never adhered to the idea that there were problems.
His failure to acknowledge mistakes has brought to the unmistakable disaster that we have now.
“What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.”
This is really emblematic of the entire failure of the situation–Bush never listened to the people outside his administration who believed going in was a mistake, that Iraq was not an actual threat.
He’s never adhered to the idea that there were problems.
His failure to acknowledge mistakes has brought to the unmistakable disaster that we have now.
“What is so distressing about the Bush policy on Iraq is that Bush is not only unwilling to concede what everyone sees (which is that the Iraq situation is a complete disaster), but that Bush actually seems to believe what he is saying.”
This is really emblematic of the entire failure of the situation–Bush never listened to the people outside his administration who believed going in was a mistake, that Iraq was not an actual threat.
He’s never adhered to the idea that there were problems.
His failure to acknowledge mistakes has brought to the unmistakable disaster that we have now.
Re: Independent Study being a blemish on an 8th graders record with desires for Law School- what a bunch of poppycock. This family just insulted the entire staff and student body of DSIS. This is a regular college prep program with graduates going on to college and universities.
I also disagree with automatic suspension being ordered by any court. Per educational code, suspension is supposed to be the last resort for punishment of children after all other forms of discipline have been exhausted. Do they really think kicking the child out of school for a day or two will really change the hearts and minds of these kids? Let’s think about “restorative justice,” rather than “punishment.”
Re: Independent Study being a blemish on an 8th graders record with desires for Law School- what a bunch of poppycock. This family just insulted the entire staff and student body of DSIS. This is a regular college prep program with graduates going on to college and universities.
I also disagree with automatic suspension being ordered by any court. Per educational code, suspension is supposed to be the last resort for punishment of children after all other forms of discipline have been exhausted. Do they really think kicking the child out of school for a day or two will really change the hearts and minds of these kids? Let’s think about “restorative justice,” rather than “punishment.”
Re: Independent Study being a blemish on an 8th graders record with desires for Law School- what a bunch of poppycock. This family just insulted the entire staff and student body of DSIS. This is a regular college prep program with graduates going on to college and universities.
I also disagree with automatic suspension being ordered by any court. Per educational code, suspension is supposed to be the last resort for punishment of children after all other forms of discipline have been exhausted. Do they really think kicking the child out of school for a day or two will really change the hearts and minds of these kids? Let’s think about “restorative justice,” rather than “punishment.”
Re: Independent Study being a blemish on an 8th graders record with desires for Law School- what a bunch of poppycock. This family just insulted the entire staff and student body of DSIS. This is a regular college prep program with graduates going on to college and universities.
I also disagree with automatic suspension being ordered by any court. Per educational code, suspension is supposed to be the last resort for punishment of children after all other forms of discipline have been exhausted. Do they really think kicking the child out of school for a day or two will really change the hearts and minds of these kids? Let’s think about “restorative justice,” rather than “punishment.”