politics
- Gavin Newsom
- Cal Dems
- Diabetes research
- University of California regents
- No one organized group
- Main argument: it’s a $5B bond issue we can’t afford right now, even if it’s probably a good thing.
- Everyone
- CA Republicans
- Coalition of industrial property owners
- Cal Dems
- Everyone else
- Cal GOP
- Everyone
- CA Republicans
- Gavin Newson
- CA Dems
- ACLU
- Not really anyone
- Everyone
- ACLU
- CA Republicans
- Police associations
- Albertsons Safeway?
- CA Dems
- ACLU
- Bernie
- Employee unions
- Underlying theme of endorsements: “let cities decide which policies make sense for them at the local level.”
- Gavin Newsom
- Builders unions
- Underlying theme of opposition: “Will reduce incentive to build affordable housing.”
- GOP
- Police unions
- Chambers of commerce
- Everyone else
- Healthcare workers union. This would require clinics to hire more workers. It’s a job handout.
- Cal Dems
- Cal Republicans, oddly enough
- Cal Medical Association. Doctors are saying this isn’t necessary.
- Cal Nurses union
- Some CA Democrats
- CA firefighters union?
- Republicans
- Greens
- CA nurses association
- ACLU
- Everyone
- ACLU doesn’t like the new assessment system, which is a legit concern.
- Aney
- Little
- Williams
- Codiga
- White
-
China and Russia aren’t strongly allied with each other; they’re not going to double-team us. We are China’s biggest trading partner and they don’t want to cripple their economy by destroying that relationship. We have our disagreements with Saudi Arabia, but not so many that they’re going to throw away decades of friendship and attack us. That we’d have to fight all three at once is ridiculous, but I’m using that as an absurd worst-case scenario. ↩︎
- You’re writing an instant messaging app that can more easily share information with law enforcement agencies, or one designed to make that impossible. Either of those alter how governments interacts with their citizens.
- You made a ride-sharing app. It’s now easy for drivers to sign up and start making money, at the expense of existing taxi drivers. Your app alters the workforce.
- Your website does a better job of calculating its users’ income taxes and giving them bigger refunds. It shifts the flow of money through the economy.
Justice Department takes 'major step' toward rescheduling marijuana:
The Justice Department took a significant step toward rescheduling marijuana Thursday, formalizing its process to reclassify the drug as lower-risk and remove it from a category in which it has been treated as more dangerous than fentanyl and meth.[...]
“Look folks, no one should be in jail for merely using or possessing marijuana. Period,” Biden said in Thursday’s video, his third time speaking extensively on the topic since his directive two years ago.
At last. Let’s put an end to this nonsense.
Drug Scheduling
On the subject of Drug Scheduling:
Schedule IV
Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are: Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol
So the devil’s lettuce is currently Schedule I with "a high potential for abuse”, but Xanax and Valium are not. Got it. That tells you what you need to know about the DEA’s evaluation processes.
Tennessee bans kids playing in sprinklers
Tennessee’s new “chemtrail bill” is inherently ludicrous. It’s also as poorly written as cold be expected. From the bill itself:
The intentional injection, release, or dispersion, by any means, of chemicals, chemical compounds, substances, or apparatus within the borders of this state into the atmosphere with the express purpose of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight is prohibited.
Strictly speaking, the big government types in Tennessee are banning residents from setting up lawn sprinklers for their kids to play in on a hot day.
On the plus side, it will be explicitly illegal to “roll coal” with the intent of covering another person in a cloud of smoke.
Biden pardons cannabis users
US President Joe Biden pardoned all Federal convictions for the use and simple possession of cannabis. I don’t use cannabis. If it were to go away tomorrow, my life wouldn’t change one bit.
I am thrilled with this blanket pardon.
Modify the statement, like:
I am pardoning additional individuals who may continue to experience the unnecessary collateral consequences of a conviction for simple possession of beer, attempted simple possession of beer, or use of beer.
and it sounds utterly obvious, and ludicrous that it ever would have been an issue in the first place. I enjoy a good stout or porter, and I can walk into almost any grocery store, flash my ID, hand over my money, and walk out with a bottle of drugs that’s caused far more societal harm than cannabis ever did. That I can drink a beer in public and no one bats an eye, while my neighbors could smoke a joint in their own house and go to jail for it, is insanity.
Good on you, Mr. President, for making life better for a whole lot of Americans.
Newsom vetoed self-driving truck bill
California governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required self-driving vehicles to have a human driver.
“Considering the longstanding commitment of my administration to addressing the present and future challenges for work and workers in California, and the existing regulatory framework that presently and sufficiently governs this particular technology, this bill is not needed at this time,” Newsom wrote. “For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”"
Good. I don’t see this as a safety issue so much as a make-work law. If a human would have to be in a self-driving truck at all times and ready to assume the controls at a moment’s notice, that’s basically human-driven with extra steps. Either the tech is good enough to be autonomous, or it’s not good enough to replace a human driver in the first place. And as a driver, I don’t think I’d want to be legally responsible for whatever boneheaded move a truck might take in the moments before I could regain control over it. “Hey, I know it was the AI that decided to swerve into the crowd of toddlers, and you only had 300ms to respond, but you were the one sitting in the driver’s seat…”
I’m not thrilled with ending human jobs without giving those people a way to survive. Even if I weren’t sympathetic to those hard-working people who are ready and willing to do the tough jobs that keep society running (and I hope it’s obvious that I am), enlightened self-interest means that I don’t want all of them to be unemployed and hungry. That’s bad for everyone. I also wish we shipped more freight via train, which is cheaper and way more environmentally friendly. Making it easier and cheaper to carry even more via truck is probably the wrong process to optimize.
Still, I think this bill was a well meaning but ultimately wrong solution. Frankly, it seems like it’d be cheaper and more efficient to pay those drivers to stay home than to pay them to perch in a self-driving truck.
California 2022 Midterms Voting Guide
These are my recommendations for the November 8, 2022 midterm election in California.
Propositions
Direct democracy looks like a great idea on paper. In practice, we end up with awful laws like Prop 8. Because it’s so hard to remove bad propositions once they’re approved, it’s better to vote “no” on ballot propositions you’re unsure about. If it’s a great idea — or even a bad one, in the case of Prop 29’s predecessors — the proposers can try again in a later election. You can always choose to approve it next time.
Proposition 1 — Reproductive Freedom
Yes. Explicitly protect abortion rights at the state constitution level.
Proposition 26 — Casino Sports Betting
No. This isn’t so important that we need to write it into law.
Proposition 27 — Online Sports Betting
No. This isn’t so important that we need to write it into law. Note that some advertising makes it sound like you have to pick one of Prop 26 or Prop 27. That’s untrue, and you can vote “no” or “yes” to either, both, or neither, as you wish.
Proposition 28 — School Arts
Yes. California has decent support for STEM education. We should also support creative arts. We have a record budget surplus and should invest in all our students.
Proposition 29 — Dialysis Clinics
No, and stop asking. This terrible idea keeps arising every couple of years. We’ve said repeatedly that we don’t want to enshrine this mistake into the California constitution, and we still don’t.
Proposition 30 — Electric Vehicle Subsidies
No. I’m ambivalent. When in doubt, say “no”.
Proposition 31 — Enforce the Flavored Tobacco Bans
Yes. The tobacco industry worked to block enacting a widely supported law that would make it harder for them to market “fun” vape flavors to kids. California has already chosen this legislation. Now let’s defeat Tobacco’s efforts to stop it.
GoDaddy Terminates Texas Spy Site
GoDaddy gives Texas abortion website notice: Find new host ASAP:
The highly controversial and regressive Texas abortion law went into effect on September 1. With the law comes the Texas Right to Life group’s website where anyone can submit allegations that a woman had an abortion past the state’s six-week cutoff mark. The state’s new abortion law also allows private citizens to target anyone accused of helping facilitate an abortion.
[…]
Amid the hacktivism is an outcry directed at GoDaddy, the company that hosts the website. Many have called on the company to cut off its services to Texas Right to Life, a call that has been heard. According to a statement GoDaddy provided to The New York Times, Texas Right to Life has been given 24 hours to find a different host for its website.
Even GoDaddy, of creepily sexy advertising fame, knows the Texas neighbor-stalking website is immoral.
I don’t ever want to hear another word about “government overreach” from the Texas GOP. Not a word.
November 2020 Voting Guide
These are the notes I collected to determine how I’m going to vote on November 3, 2020. I’m posting this not to tell you how you should vote, but to share my reasons for why I’m voting this way.
United States
President
Biden is the only serious candidate.
Congress
U.S. House California District 13
Barbara Lee (D, Incumbent)
California
State Assembly District 18
Rob Bonta (D, Incumbent)
State Senate District 9
Nancy Skinner (D, Incumbent)
Ballot measures
Prop 14: Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative
Slightly oppose: It’s a good thing to research and support in general, but this isn’t a good time to incur more public debt.
For
Against
Prop 15: Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative
Support. Raises taxes on large companies while specifically exempting houses, farms, and small businesses.
For
Against
Prop 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment
Support. Prop 209 ended affirmative action. This doesn’t bring it back, but allows it to be considered when it makes sense.
For
Against
Prop 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment
Support. If someone’s done their time, then they should be able to participate in society again.
For
Against
Prop 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment
Mildly support. It seems goofy to allow a 17 year old to vote in the primary for someone they can’t vote for in the actual election, but it’s probably not the end of the world
First time we have a record turnout because a YouTuber urges everyone to support Deez Nuts for the CA Democrat nomination, I’ll protest this with a pitchfork.
For
Against
Prop 19: Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment
Oppose. This is charity for the rich. You can sell your house and transfer the low tax basis to a new, more expensive house three times? No way. It has some good ideas but we should weigh them in a standalone proposition, or better, a state bill.
For
Against
Prop 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative
Oppose. This is a charity to the prison systems. Collecting DNA on shoplifters and drug possessors? WTF.
For
Against
Prop 21: Local Rent Control Initiative
Support. It makes sense to let cities experiment. If it doesn’t work locally, change it. What’s good in Oakland may suck in San Diego and vice versa.
For
Against
Prop 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative
Oppose: This is some bullshit charity for Uber, Lyft, and Door Dash.
Everything about this seems to be a lie. For example, it provides a good minimum wage, but only while the drive is actively on a run, not when they’re between runs.
For
Against
Prop 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
Oppose: No, and stop asking. No one wants this. As a prop, it’s super hard to get rid of if it turns out to be a horrible idea.
For
Against
Prop 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
Oppose. I generally support privacy laws, but this has issues. The EFF described Proposition 24 as “a mixed bag of partial steps backwards and forwards.” I’m very skeptical of a privacy bill that the EFF doesn’t actively endorse.
Come back next election with a better version and I’ll totally back it.
For
Against
Prop 25: Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum
Support. End the cash bail system. Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”. This is a good idea.
For
Against
Alameda County
AC Transit District
Director At-large
Peeples (Endorsed by papers. Opponents aren’t bad, but Peeples is more experienced and seems to be pretty good at this.)
Peralta Community College District Trustee
Heyman (Incumbent; opponent doesn’t have much reason to vote for him.)
Superior Court
Condes (Supported by majority of progressive groups. Opponent isn’t awful, though.)
Measure V: Sales Tax
Support. Extends the existing sales tax.
Measure W: Sales Tax
Lightly oppose. Good to fund housing and services, but we’re already slammed with super high sales taxes and that feels regressive.
City of Alameda
Auditor
Kearney (unopposed)
AUSD board
(Best profiles, and endorsed by groups that seemed relevant.)
City Council
(By ruling out other candidates, not as an endorsement of these)
Measure AA
Mildly support. It’s goofy that voters are being asked to rule on this petty internal bickering, but here we are.
Measure Z
Mildly oppose. Allows altering existing 3-bedroom homes into 2 1-bedroom. Parking and traffic are already bad. We couldn’t live in Alameda if we couldn’t find 3-bedroom housing.
Treasurer
Kennedy (unopposed)
Sources
America's military versus the world
I am pro-military. I think having a strong military means we’re unlikely to have to use it to protect ourselves. But how strong does it actually need to be?
For the sake of argument, I’ll assume that spending corresponds to strength. That is, America spending $1 million gives us roughly as much military power as China or Russia spending $1 million. If this is not true, then we’re spending money poorly and should re-evaluate our budget before increasing it. But that whole line of argument frankly disrespects our world’s finest soldiers and sailors, so let’s agree to set that aside for now.
According to SIPRI, these are the budgets of the world’s biggest militaries in 2015, in billions of dollars:
World Military Spending, 2015
| # | Country | Spending ($B) | Cumulative ($B) | Ally |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States | 596.0 | ||
| 2 | China | 215.0 | 215.0 | |
| 3 | Saudi Arabia | 87.2 | 302.2 | |
| 4 | Russia | 66.4 | 368.6 | |
| 5 | United Kingdom | 55.5 | 424.1 | ✔️ |
| 6 | India | 51.3 | 475.4 | ✔️ |
| 7 | France | 50.9 | 526.3 | ✔️ |
| 8 | Japan | 40.9 | 567.2 | ✔️ |
| 9 | Germany | 39.4 | 606.6 | ✔️ |
| 10 | South Korea | 36.4 | 643.0 | ✔️ |
The extra column, “Cumulative”, is a running total of the budgets of countries other than the United States. Look at Germany, #9 on the list: that’s where the rest of the world added together is finally bigger than America. We literally spend more than the next 8 countries after us. Of those, UK, India, France, Japan, and Germany are staunch US allies. Removing those, we outspend the remaining top three countries by 60%. Even in an outlandishly unrealistic scenario where we’d be fighting all three of them simultaneously1, with no help at all from our allies, we’d probably still win by a wide margin.
If something like that happened, we would get help from our allies on this list, whose militaries add up to $274.4B, or just $94.4B shy of those top three “unfriendly” countries (and $59.4B greater than China alone). In a likely situation where the rest of the world shows up, our combined allied strength is vastly stronger than any potential enemies.
We’re currently hearing lots of propaganda about our pathetic, run-down little military. Those are unpatriotic lies. We already have the world’s largest military and it’s nearly three times stronger than runner up China. We could probably be making wiser decisions about how we’re spending our money, but if anyone tells you we should be spending more, make sure their hands aren’t reaching for your wallet.
Technology IS Politics
It’s not possible for technologists to avoid politics because technology is politics:
None of those are inherently bad, but they do cause changes in the lives and finances of their users. After all, if they didn’t affect people we wouldn’t be doing them.
Technology is politics. It’s logically inconsistent and meaningless to tell an engineer that they’re “too political” or that they should “stick to tech”.
My FCC Net Neutrality Letter
This is my letter to the FCC on September 12, 2014 regarding the upcoming net neutrality decision making process:
I am a Comcast customer, and I am paying them for a 100 million bit per second connection. Comcast has a monthly data cap of 300 billion bytes (or about 3 trillion bits) per month. At the speeds I’m paying full price for, I can use up my entire monthly data allotment in about 8 hours.
More simply, my monthly Comcast payment entitles me to use my Internet connection at full speed for one third of one day per month.
Esteemed colleagues, I find it disingenuous that Comcast and their peers claim that they need to charge more to carry the services I want to use, all while constricting my paid usage to one ninetieth of my connection’s capacity and raking in record profits. There is simply no fiscal credibility to their claims and I urge you to look upon them with due skepticism.
The FCC has received millions of letters supporting net neutrality rules against Internet slow lanes. Most of these have been form letters written by various citizen-friendly organizations and submitted by casual site visitors. Most of the individually written letters are various restatements of why net neutrality is important. All of those are good, but it’s also important to remind readers of these letters that anti-free-market groups like NCTA and its constituents have no legitimate counterarguments. They claim to need Internet slow and fast lanes to make money, but the industry makes huge amounts of money while delivering some of the worst Internet service in the developed world.
Comcast earned 3.3 billion dollars in net income in the second quarter of 2014, all while allowing customers to use only one ninetieth of the utility they’ve paid for. The only valid explanation for their strident opposition to net neutrality is sheer greed.
Stop The E Parasite Act
This is the letter I just sent to my representative, urging him to vote against Hollywood’s E-PARASITE Act:
Congressman Fortenberry, please vote against the appropriately-named “E-PARASITE Act” being proposed by Rep. Smith, TX. It’s the counterpart of Senate Bill S.968, the “PROTECT IP Act”.
This flawed legislation seeks to criminalize civil offenses and reverse our Constitutional presumption of innocence for the benefit of a tiny — but very vocal — coalition of Hollywood special interest groups. The Internet has brought untold billions of dollars to our economy and democracy to distant shores. Let’s not discard these advances for the benefit of a few CEOs who haven’t figured out how to do business in the new economy. Given technology legislation that’s supported by the AFL-CIO and opposed by Google, I’ll side with Google every time.
Please stop these parasites from destroying the Internet we built just so they can make a few more dollars before their obsolete business plans finish them off.
Thank you for your time,
Kirk Strauser
Norfolk, NE
Please let your own representatives know that we don’t want this terrible legislation.
Shades Of Green
In Nebraska’s May 13 election, two Green Party candidates ran for Douglas County Commissioner, District 3. Between them, they received one vote. How stoned do you have to be before you forget to vote for yourself?
At least neither can accuse the other of splitting the election.
Sue For Mayor
I’m voting for Sue Fuchtman for mayor of Norfolk. I know her personally, and she’s the sort of intelligent, decent, detail-oriented person we should have making city decisions. The other candidates might be alright, but I’d rather see someone elected that I’m genuinely excited to have in office.
Vote for Sue. I will.
Hot About Warming
Global warming is real. Forget the arguments about what’s causing it. Forget trying to figure out whether it’s going to be good or bad. Forget wondering what should be done to stop it. The fact of the matter is that the Earth’s atmosphere has been getting measurably warmer for quite a few years and shows every sign of continuing.
I don’t remember when I first heard of global warming, but I do know that it became a political football soon afterward. Sadly, it seems like the issues around it have turned into a screaming match about whether it even exists. This is silly and needs to stop so that we can figure out what to do next.
I am not an atmospheric scientist. I’m pretty sure I don’t even know any. I do follow science news rather closely, though, and it’s become obvious to me that almost all scientists agree that the Earth is warmer now than it was a decade ago, that the decade before was even cooler, and that the average temperature has been trending upward.
I’ve also noticed that while scientists agree that global warming is real, the only groups who disbelieve it are political in nature (including some that I’m usually a part of; more on that later). When presented with a scientific question, I’m more likely to trust experts in the field than politicians.
Along those lines, those politicians who refuse to accept global warming tend to dismiss it as a conspiracy of liberal meteorologists. To me, that idea is just asinine. I was a science major in college, and one of the things I learned very well is that it’s almost impossible to get a bunch of researchers to agree on something. No matter how obvious the statement, someone will nitpick it to death and argue until someone is able to demonstrate that the statement is most likely true. Because of that, there are a few reasons why this vast left-wing conspiracy is beyond silly:
First, there is an enormous body of evidence supporting the idea of global warming. Most people seem to think that science is about proving theories, when in reality the exact opposite is true: scientists do their best to disprove hypotheses and only the ones that stand the test of time are elevated to theories. For example, a lot of physicists have made careers of trying to show that some of Einstein’s ideas were wrong. Because so many scientists have tried and failed, those ideas are generally accepted as accurate and used as the basis for other theories. If anyone designed an experiment that demonstrated flaws in his theories, that person would win the Nobel prize and be given all the research money they could ever want to run other experiments.
Well, the same is going on for global warming. Researchers from around the world have studied climate data with a fine-toothed comb to look for flaws and anomalies that would show that our atmospheric temperature hasn’t been rising. The fact that no one has been able to convincingly do so is a strong indicator that the scientific consensus is correct.
Science is driven by a need to understand the world around us. Possibly the only stronger motivation for researchers is fame. Those Nobel prizes don’t only go to physicists; lots of climate researchers would love to see their names in the big journals and on newspaper headlines.
Finally, the scientific community is brutally harsh to its own members who knowingly publish false or misleading results. Even allegations of wrongdoing are sufficient to ruin a lot of careers. No researcher wants to get caught submitting shoddy work or invalid data as the punishment is severe and thorough.
So take your pick of reasons: whether from fear of being caught lying, personal ambition, or of a dogged determination to find the truth, it’s just not possible for such a large body scientists to almost entirely claim that global warming is taking place unless they have reason to believe it really is happening.
On thing that drives me absolutely nuts is when people confuse climate with weather when they’re actually different subjects. “How can scientists know what the climate will do ten years from now,” they’ll say, “when they can’t even guess what the weather will be next week?” The best analogy I’ve heard involves boiling a pot of water. Climate is like looking at that pot, seeing that it’s on a burner, and using a thermometer to see how fast it’s getting hotter. Weather is like trying to figure out where the first bubble will form on the bottom.
Another common misperception is that global warming is the same as universal warming. It’s not. A lot of researchers have started referring to “climate change” to more accurate describe what’s happening. Basically, as the atmosphere grows warmer, the jet stream moves around, ocean currents shift, and weather patterns change. As some spots on the planet will get much warmer, others will get cooler. The important part is that the average temperature is increasing, even taking into account localized drops.
Think of it like the refrigerator in your house. Anything that uses electricity creates heat — that’s just the nature of energy. Your refrigerator uses that electricity to shift some heat from inside itself into the rest of your home. But even if you left the door open, because of the electricity consumed by the motor and turned into heat, the average temperature inside your house will go up.
My last weather-related pet peeve is people who think that unusually cool days are proof that global warming isn’t true. Equally bad are ones who believe that warm days prove that it is true. It sounds dumb and is very unflattering. If you do that, stop.
A recent report claimed that the trend to warmer temperatures has reversed and we are actually headed toward a cooling period. The problem here is exactly the same as with weather versus climate, discussed above. The only difference is that the time intervals involved are a year or two instead of weeks. Now, don’t get me wrong: I sincerely, wholeheartedly hope that this turns out to be correct and that we’re moving toward the same average temperatures our society has learned to handle over the last few centuries. We already know how to deal with the status quo and that’s definitely the easiest outcome to manage. However, it’s important to remember that it’s still too early to know whether this was a one year fluke or a long term change, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably lying to you.
The most vexing part of the whole subject is why this is such a politically charged issue. Now, I understand the difficulty of agreeing upon an acceptable response to the problem, or even whether it’s a problem at all. However, I just don’t see why global warming’s existence is even in question outside scientific circles. To me, that’s like arguing that nuclear fission is a lie because to accept it would mean that people can build nuclear bombs. Our feelings about the implications of the facts are immaterial to whether the facts themselves are correct.
I think it’s the height of absurdity that a person’s opinions on scientific topics depends on their political leanings. I’m not even sure how views on the matter became so sharply divided along political lines. Since when did a bunch of hippies become true believers in science? And what prompted industry to turn its back on the very idea instead of embracing new markets and a shift to cleaner, cheaper power? This could so easily have gone the other way, but the sides have been chosen and neither shows any sign of wavering. As a conservative, I’m irked to no end that my cohorts have ceded the intellectual high ground to groups who were preaching granola and pyramid power a few decades ago.
In a nutshell, I wish politicians would quit making this an us-or-them issue and accept or reject global warming on scientific grounds. As of right now, that means accepting it. Within the circles of experts on the subject, almost everyone believes that the Earth is getting warmer and will continue to do so. To continue to argue otherwise on emotional grounds does nothing but marginalize the people who should be stepping up to address the issue.
Whether global warming is a problem, whether we caused it, and whether we can do anything about it are questions requiring serious debate. This can’t happen until we accept that it is real. It is. Now lets move forward, shall we?
Nebraska Wants To Adopt Your Kids
Senator Brad Ashford of Omaha has proposed criminalizing the act of keeping your kids home from school. This is abhorrent for many reasons, and should be withdrawn from consideration immediately.
Deputy Douglas County Attorney Kim Hawekotte and Ralston Public Schools social worker Steve Snodgrass, both active in truancy prevention in the Omaha area, said the proposed language change will make it easier for schools to identify students who are being improperly excused.
“By taking that sentence out,” Hawekotte said, “the schools have to react when a youth isn’t in school, no matter what the reason. You want the system to kick into place to make that determination.”
No, Ms. Hawekotte: you want the system to kick in. Our kids rarely miss school for non-medical reasons. However, sometimes we take advantage of educational opportunities that require a day or two of absence. As parents, this is our privilege and responsibility. It is not your job to second-guess our decisions.
As introduced, LB 1159 would get law enforcement, including the county attorney, involved earlier by making it an infraction to be the parent of a truant child. The first offense would prompt a $50 fine, the second, $100. The third would be considered a Class III misdemeanor, punishable by up to three months of jail time and a $500 fine.
We are considering taking a long weekend to Mt. Rushmore or Yellowstone National Park near the end of the school year. For various reasons, we might possibly have to make that trip while class is still in session. Mr. Ashford, your plan would require our school system to investigate us as criminals and fine us for teaching our kids first-hand about our country’s history, geology, and geography. Will you be passing a bill to take our kids on an equivalent field trip? Or will they simply miss out on that experience because likeminded senators deem themselves better parents to our kids than we are?
“If you’re not in school, you’re not learning,” said Ashford of Omaha, chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Ashford, that’s one of the most offensively ignorant things I’ve read in a while. Formal education is critically important, but I assure you that my children learn outside the classroom. From teaching my kids to write computer programs, to learning French together as a family, to taking trips to national monuments and museums, they are learning.
I don’t want to downplay the need for kids to attend school as required, but completely reject your asinine assertion that their education ends when I pick them up from school.
The solution is simple: don’t fix what’s not broken, especially when the fix would cause even more problems. If a child is suspected of truancy, investigate that child. If a school system is unable or unwilling to do so, then address that problem. Don’t create an assumption of guilt every time a child misses school, though. You are not my kids’ parent. I am. Irk you though it may, I know more about what’s best for them than you do.
This bill puts State above Parent. Kill it.