Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: District's move to drop Apples leaves sour taste, Oct. 5.
Al Swinyard, assistant superintendent for management information systems, told the Times that the choice to consolidate the Pinellas school district on one PC platform is clear, that there was "no need to consult teachers and parents," and that "he has known for years what had to be done."
This is the tail wagging the dog. Swinyard does not acknowledge that his role in the organization is to support the teachers. It is not the teachers' responsibility to "make do" with whatever platform eases the burden of maintenance befalling the information systems department. It is the responsibility of the teachers to evaluate the existing computing platforms and choose what advances their goal of educating the children of Pinellas county. The IS department must support the teachers, as long as the teachers are not asking for something unreasonable. Clearly, the teachers are not asking for something unreasonable. Apple has had a large share of the educational PC market for many years.
Arrogance has led superintendent Howard Hinesley and his management team to issue an ill-advised decree. The teachers should prove that they're informed and band together to make a case for keeping their Apples. Hinesley should respect them and listen.
Re: District's move to drop Apples leaves sour taste.
I am appalled at the audacity of Pinellas school superintendent Howard Hinesley. Heaven forbid a debate regarding our children's learning tools should take too long for Hinesley, but I thought debate was one of the ideals our country was founded upon.
The story made it clear that he gathered no financial or performance data to back up his decision, a decision that should have been left to those who understand the implications the best - the teachers.
I grew up using Apples in schools. Now, for business, I use a PC. What do I have at home? An iMac. Because I'm sentimentally attached to it? No, because it's a better computer. I have the experience on both platforms to make that decision. Hinesley should have left his dictatorial practices at the door and let those best qualified make an informed decision. I would stand by the teachers, no matter which option they felt was the best. But to stand by this "intuitive" decision - no way.
Re: A crass, desperate Davis, by Robyn E. Blumner, Oct. 5.
Robyn Blumner may be right about California Gov. Gray Davis having been politically motivated to sign a law granting several million illegal immigrants in his state access to drivers' licenses. However, a driver's license is a necessity for migrant workers to follow the harvest in order for them to eke out their meager livings.
Americans actively recruit foreigners during times of economic growth and prosperity, but during an economic downturn we become obsessed with the costs of immigrants, both real and imagined. A high level of economic growth requires immigrant labor, but we don't want the immigrants that go with it.
So it is disheartening to read Blumner's emphasis on the rule of law and the illegality of undocumented workers. It does matter if one is breaking the law even when one is hungry, wearing torn clothing, and unable to find work. But shouldn't we be more concerned about our government's unfair and inconsistent enforcement of immigration law? Shouldn't we be at least equally concerned with the substantial illegality on the part of labor contractors and growers when they pay off the books in cash and help the workers obtain false IDs and Social Security cards?
Wouldn't it be more effective if all of us would provide support for the minimal increase of pay and benefits for these workers that would give them a living wage? Then we could effectively test the premise that this work would attract citizens and legal aliens to agricultural and other less desirable jobs.
When contractors and some growers say they can't find legal workers what they mean is, "We want illegals because we can work them harder, pay them less, abuse them and get away with it."
Government policies should encourage legal immigration, but this does not happen because of the demand for cheap labor. Aren't those who support cheap labor the real culprits?
Re: Faith-based program proves effective, letter, Oct. 5.
Addressing the matter of faith-based programs, the letter writer gives evidence that the InnerChange Freedom Initiative program changes the lives of prisoners through the power of Christian conversion. Of this I have no doubt, for I have seen it happen. Nor do I doubt that there is demonstrated power in other religions to transform lives. But the effectiveness of religious-conversion programs is not the issue.
Nor is government "hostility to religion" the issue, for there is no such hostility. For many years, government has given millions of taxpayer dollars to faith-based agencies (Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Jewish Family Services, etc.) for the express purpose of partnering with these agencies in human outreach and services. There are, however, some caveats - namely, financial books will be audited, there will be no discrimination in hiring or delivery of services, and religious conversion shall not be part of the program.
Here is the real issue, and the deadly new element in the president's faith-based initiative: The president wants taxpayer money to fund programs directly aimed at religious conversion. This may sound innocent enough if your own favorite religion gets the funding. But it can't stop there, of course, since the president wants to be "fair." Your tax money will also be funding programs aimed at converting people to Scientology, Islam, Buddhism, witchcraft, etc. It is precisely because of this deadly new element that the president cannot get Congress to pass his program and must push it ahead by executive order.
The issue is not whether religion can change lives. It certainly can. The issue is whether taxpayers want the U.S. government to be paying for programs explicitly aimed at religious conversion. Overwhelmingly, the answer is no, but the president refuses to listen.
Re: Faith-based program proves effective, letter.
The letter writer criticizing Robyn Blumner's column on the InnerChange Freedom Initiative prison program needs to go back and reread the study of the success rate by the University of Pennsylvania. The study dropped those who were not successfully converted to a new way of life and only studied those who had made a success of the program. What actually happened is that the program is a massive failure. In addition to its failure, the program is giving special privileges to those who "convert." Now come on. Under prison conditions, anyone would convert to gain those extra privileges.
In much the same way, the "No Child Left Behind" initiative modeled on what then-Gov. George Bush promulgated in Texas, actually encourages marginal students to drop out, so that the success rate is inflated.
Re: The working poor aren't invited to the recovery, Oct. 5.
Thank you, Mary Jo Melone, for sharing the heartwarming, yet sad story of unemployment in this column. There are so many who have so little right now, so many that it is easy to forget just how bad the economy is - unless you're one of those poor souls.
The time is now for each of us to take care of the other, as best we can, in these hard times.
Would it be possible for someone at the St. Petersburg Times to translate any of George Will's columns into English for me? Consider this quote from Will's Oct. 6 column (Insufficiently understood fascism): "... Marxist puerilities, the dated nature of which is not disguised by recasting the caricature of America in the vocabulary of antiglobalization."
Speaking of vocabulary, what language is that? Because it's Greek to me.