Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Wanting Better Schools Does Not Make You a Racist

When residents of a subdivision in the Porter Township of Pennsylvania requested that all the children in their subdivision attend the same local school, Wallenpaupack Elementary, they were lambasted by the local newspaper for being racist.  They felt they were being dishonestly portrayed in the press because the parents had never made any racist comments.  

The only thing that these parents had requested was that all of the children in their community be sent to nearby Wallenpaupack rather than having some of them sent to Bushkill Elementary School, in the East Stroudsburg School District.  The parents in the Porter Township have been upset for some time that their children are routinely separated from other kids in their neighborhood.  What makes the separation even worse, however, was that Bushkill has significantly lower test scores, as well as a lower rate of parental involvement.  These parents wanted their kids to have the same opportunities as the other children in their community.  Don't parents have the right to want the best education possible for their children? There isn't anything wrong with that, is there?

You can imagine how shocked these parents were to be insulted by an editorial in their local newspaper that insisted that the only reason these parents wanted to change school districts was for racial reasons and so they could pay lower school taxes.  The idea that a caring parent would want to change districts for purely educational reasons and to keep their children with their neighborhood friends, was entirely dismissed.

What do my readers think?  Should parents be forced to send their kids to a school system with lower test scores simply to avoid being called racists, or should they have the right to seek out the best and most appropriate public schools in their community?  These parents were deeply offended by the editor's accusations, especially since it came from their local newspaper, which they felt should have been unbiased.  They felt their intentions were being intentionally distorted and that the accusations of racism were simply not true.

There is no reason for me to reiterate what these parents had to say on the topic.  Read this letter by one of the parents that was written in response to the editorial and decide for yourself whether their request for a change in school districts was exactly what most reasonable and rational parents would want for their children:

Letter to the Editor of the Pocono Record in Pennsylvania

Dear Editor of the Pocono Record,

The entire premise of the article "Does Race Play a Role in Porter Township School Switch" is not only false, but extremely offensive to those of us who seek only to provide our children with the highest quality of education and quality of life. The question in the headline is answered in the very first sentence of the article: "Nobody came out and said it in testimony". The writer then goes on to fabricate a completely inaccurate account of what Porter Township is trying to accomplish. Over seven people testified in favor of the initiative, and we all made ourselves very clear as to our motivations. The school board's District Attorney and the writer of the article have chosen to ignore the actual testimony and spin the issue in such a way as to attempt to deflect criticism from where it belongs: the East Stroudsburg School District. To attempt to do this by insinuating that I and my friends and neighbors are racists is not only personally offensive, but shows an unfortunate disregard for the basics of civil discourse.


The first and foremost concern for all of us, especially those of us with school age children like myself, is a better education. Look at the test scores and compare them year after year like I did. Wallenpaupack tests better. Then look at the social factors for the parents of children who have been born and raised alongside other children in their community, but now must attend a school full of strangers. Not because they are of a different race, because they have already formed friendships and bonds with children in their neighborhood, their church, their parks and play grounds, their library, their pools and lakes and their Pre-K classes and play groups.

Taxes are also a concern, but I'd pay the same or more just to live in a place where I could experience belonging to a community and having my child go to the same school with higher education goals and standards not to mention better parent participation in PTA and extracurricular events. Surely wanting to pay lower taxes in today's extremely difficult financial climate cannot be a bad thing? Why are the people of Porter being depicted as racists who don't want to pay taxes? Because having failed to make their case for blocking the initiative, the East Stroudsburg School District has chosen to play the race card - and the writer of the article is complicit in this disingenuous and somewhat desperate tactic.


Lastly, our property values have been damaged by the (largely deserved) poor reputation of the East Stroudsburg school district. Why not look into that contributing factor? Why is the school district performing so poorly? Who is to blame? Surely it is not the fault of Porter Township who only contributes a drop in the overall bucket of their budget. Also, the District ought to take a long, hard look at the lack of parent and teacher involvement beyond the classroom. I say this from experience as an active PTO member at Bushkill Elementary. All fundraising efforts fall on the shoulders of 3 overworked board members, and a handful of teachers--in an elementary school with over 400 children. The East Stroudsburg School District has a clear responsibility to manage its budget and bring the community together to serve our children. Instead, it chooses to make a grab for undeserved revenue, and to engage in divisive rhetoric.

I expect more from our local newspaper, upon which I rely on you to gather facts and evidence, not pander to a failing school districts attempt to keep 1 million in undeserved tax revenue to provide an inferior education to less than 50 students.

Best Regards,
Cynthia 
 


You are reading from the blog:  http://lies-and-liars.blogspot.com

Photo of school bus courtesy of www.morguefile.com
 

Sunday, May 12, 2013

The Jodi Arias Lies

Few recent trials have captured the attention of the American public more than the Jodi Arias murder trial.  She was accused of murdering her former boyfriend, Travis Alexander, on June 4, 2008 at his house in Mesa, Arizona by slitting his throat, stabbing him 29 times and then shooting him in the face.  After a televised four month trial, the jury convicted Ms. Arias of first-degree murder on May 8, 2013.

Arizona is one of the few states in which jurors can submit questions they have, and the judge will then ask them during the trial.  Based on the questions that the jurors submitted, one of the problems they had was whether to believe her testimony that she had acted in self-defense.  They were bothered by the fact that she had already told so many lies to investigators.  At least some of the jurors wondered how they could believe anything she said.  What were some of the lies that may have troubled the jurors?

Biggest Lies Told by Jodi Arias

1.  When she was first questioned on July 15, 2008 about the death of Travis Alexander, she insisted that she had not had any involvement in his death.   She said, "I would never want to hurt him."  Later, she would have to recant this statement.

2.   She also told investigators that she had not seen Travis at all since April of that year, weeks before his death.  However, a camera was found at the crime scene with photos inside that proved she was actually in the house on the day of his death.

3.   Once she could no longer deny being present when he died, Jodi then told the police that two masked men had killed Travis, also claiming that one of the intruders had held a gun to her head.

4.    Jodi must have forgotten the first story, because a short time later she told another tale about a pair of male and female masked intruders and how Jodi, trying to save Travis, had charged down the hall and pushed the female intruder as hard as she could.  How heroic of her!

5.   When no sign of intruders could be found and it appeared that Jodi was the only person present in the house that day, Jodi tried another tact.  In this story, she finally admitted that she had killed Travis, but claimed it was in self-defense. 

6.   To support her story of self-defense, of course she had to come up with damaging evidence against Travis Alexander.  She presented letters that Travis had supposedly sent to her indicating that he was a pedophile.  However, court testing indicated that the letters were actually forgeries.

7.   Apparently, Jodi Arias could not keep herself from lying, even about where she worked.  Her new boyfriend, Ryan Burns, testified that Jodi had told him that the cuts on her fingers came from a broken margarita glass at the restaurant where she worked.  She said the name of the restaurant was Margaritaville in the town of Yreka.  No such restaurant exists.

8.   In attempting to create a fake alibi, she visited Ryan Burns within hours after killing Travis, telling him that she arrived later than promised because she had gotten lost.  She also left messages on Travis's phone, and sent him an email telling him that she was looking forward to seeing him soon.  All this was done to create the impression that she did not yet know that he was dead.

9.  In looking at her alibi, it becomes obvious that she was attempting to carry on a relationship with both Travis Alexander and Ryan Burns at the same time while, simultaneously, not wanting Travis to have a relationship with anyone else but her.  The theory is that she killed him in a jealous rage.

10.  Finally, even her appearance during the trial was a lie, of sorts.  While she was described by the press as a "blonde bombshell" prior to her arrest, she darkened her hair color to brown and wore glasses and conservative clothing during the trial, all in an obvious attempt to look too sweet and innocent to have committed these crimes.

Without a doubt, the jurors were skeptical of these lies.  After a four month trial, they convicted her of first-degree murder on May 8, 2013.  However, even after being convicted it is possible that she is still spinning a web of lies.  In an interview shortly after her conviction, she stated that she would prefer to die "sooner rather than later."  She also said that "death is the ultimate freedom."  In other interviews she has indicated that she contemplated suicide in the past.   The result of these comments is that she has been placed on a suicide watch which has actually caused the penalty phase of her trial to be delayed.  Was she still lying when she made these statements?  Who knows? Perhaps even she does not know the truth when it comes to her own thoughts and feelings.

Whatever the truth about Jodi Arias, there is no question that the events that happened on the night of June 4, 2008 were a terrible tragedy for Travis Alexander.


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Travis_Alexander

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57583601/jodi-arias-says-she-prefers-death-penalty/

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/04/jodi-arias-lies-murder-trial-travis-alexander/

You are reading from the blog:  http://lies-and-liars.blogspot.com

Photo of courthouse door courtesy of www.morguefile.com