en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/757301 Comments by calmenuff http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/82397752.html#IDComment53438908 The way I see it, corporations and big business already support the candidates, just behind closed doors. If allowing them to do it openly allows us to see who is funding the candidates and to know how their decisions are being molded, then it is fine by me. Campaigns should be very public about who they get money from so that we can judge them accordingly, and if a candidate doesn't want to be judged b y a corporation name being tagged to your campaign, then don't take their money. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:38:00 +0000 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/82397752.html#IDComment53438908 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/82319532.html#IDComment53437154 I agree that some won't/shouldn't go to college right away. But, as a teacher, it is my job to try and make everybody successful, and it is never my place to say who I should give up on or when should quit. I am not perfect in my job, and I don't get through to every kid, but it is not in me to quit on a kid. That's what makes a good teacher in my opinion: when they continue to try despite every reasonable clue that they should give up. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:28:31 +0000 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/82319532.html#IDComment53437154 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/82319532.html#IDComment53430523 It pains me to hear many of these discussions. I am a teacher, and I treat each student as if they were my own child. I take it as a failure of my own actions when a child does not succeed, and find myself doing far more work for their success than they will do for themselves. I work with a building filled with many who see and do things the same, if not better than I do, and to hear people talk as if teachers are the source of failure in the educational system makes me cringe. I'll be the first to admit that there are individuals who should not be in education that are, but to judge the whole group based on those individuals is ludicrous. Can you tell me that there is no one incompetent in your job that finds a way to stay employed? I love my job, and find it laughable that many of you would make attacks on the lucrative lifestyle that teaching produces. All of us leave our Jags and BMW's in the garage when we come to work every day. We are here because we want to make a difference, not a fortune. We do it for your kids. That doesn't make us heroes, or martyrs, or anything else, but should afford us the same respect you would like for your own profession. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:53:06 +0000 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/82319532.html#IDComment53430523 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52795855 I agree with you completely. And, if the people drive better and don't get the tickets, then the cameras will have done their job. The next argument will be that then they will lose their revenue and move their cameras, which they will, and then that intersection or area will be forced to be better drivers and that revenue will dry up as well. If you want the cameras to go away, make them useless by following the laws. Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:55:13 +0000 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52795855 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52795262 We all love technology when it does the vital tasks like letting us use our cell phones to remotely record television shows we might miss, but when it is used to enforce our rules and regulations it becomes Orwellian. They catch infractions of traffic laws, not record people sitting in their houses or the conversations they are having on their cell phones while driving down the street. It limits the things that can obviously be seen by the casual observer. I'm all for protection of privacy and individual rights, but all laws control in certain ways. This is not a new law or control, just another way to enforce existing laws. Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:49:57 +0000 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52795262 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52793676 Whether this is a source of revenue or not, there is no constitutional infraction, and I don't understand the connection to abuse of power. The cameras are the proof of guilt If you sped, or were in the intersection then you are guilty. An officer will throw out the obviously worthless tickets, but anything that shows you breaking the law in the slightest will result in a ticket. If the end result is people being more careful and less accidents due to people running lights (t-bones) then what does it mater if the city generates income? Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:34:49 +0000 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52793676 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52792337 In this case the accuser is the City of Cedar Rapids, and the witness is the camera. Since it is an actual depiction of the act, it is a pretty sturdy witness. In your argument you would fight video evidence and every other kind of electronic monitoring, so solve this case: Someone rods a convenience store and shoots the clerk. The video cameras catch the entire act, but since no one is there to report it, must they be set free? The difference is that speeding and running red lights seem like minor infractions to you, but if you are the family of someone who gets t-boned in an intersection, the crimes don't seem so small to them. Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:22:28 +0000 http://oldgo.gazlab.com.php5-15.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com/local-news/2010/01/18/red-light-camera-to-be-tested-for-positioning#IDComment52792337 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/81782927.html#IDComment52252437 The funny thing here is this is a no win situation. Race to the Top funding is a way to extend No Child Left Behind. This system will set up national standards for schools as well as hold schools accountable for growth. The big difference is that this one will be partially funded instead of taking funds away from underperforming schools. Be that as it may, I am suspect of any measures that move away from local control of education, especially in a state like Iowa. In the end, it doesn't matter. Schools didn't want NCLB, but it happened. States don't want these programs either, but they are going to come. The public likes schools and teachers to be held accountable. They like standards and repercussions. It helps them sleep at night in a world where things look so much different than the good old days. The state voted to take the money that goes with the program they were going to get whether they liked it or not. Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:42:08 +0000 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/81782927.html#IDComment52252437 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52205684 Wow. I find it hard to understand how you can equate our good fortune as a nation with a favorable ruling from God. God wanted us to win wars? It is my understanding that the wish of most deities in most religions is for people to love one another and to spread their words of love and peace. Not everyone who has religion has seen great rewards on this planet, just like not everyone without has suffered. If you truly believe in what you support, you will know that your book tells you that all rewards are met in heaven. What I sow is understanding and respect for all. What I hope is peace and good fortune for all. I ask not for vengeance upon those that disagree with me, but for my own patience so that I can afford them the same respect and rights I wish for myself. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:20:15 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52205684 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52198257 I would love to see an entirely no-cost campaign. I'd like to see a candidate that took no contributions and ran with a volunteer staff via electronic communication and viral advertisements posted on YouTube, Facebook, and such. I think it is possible. And, if we take the finance out of politics, we might be able to take out the politicians as well. You do your homework well, maybe we should have you as our first free candidate. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:59:22 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52198257 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52195571 Regardless of the intentions, the end results are the same. This decision affords the civil liberties any human would want and each American deserves. Don't punish a group because politicians are politicians. If we did that we would have to appeal every legal decision since the advent of political supporters and campaign contributions. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:31:38 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52195571 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52195262 You can't base this on what other states have done. Nevada has legalized gambling and prostitution. Texas has open containers and gun racks. At different points in time people have supported slavery, segregation, the limitation of voting rights based on gender or race, and many of those decisions were different state by state. We can only judge ourselves based on what we value and how we respect each other and our civil liberties. A vote only brings out the most adamant supporters of both sides. The general population that has no major stake in an issue like this stays at home, so the true voice of the people is never heard. Let's face facts, when it comes to adamant supporters, the numbers are on your side, but that doesn't make your side right, only louder. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:28:26 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52195262 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52151902 I agree that you have that right to believe this. I also hope you would agree that others have the right to have different philosophical or religious beliefs. Who is to say who is correct? Please continue to speak and share your feelings, but also realize that those with opposing beliefs have the same right to be free from religious persecution as you do. So if your views would take away those rights, then you have walked into the "infringe upon others" area. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:42:43 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52151902 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52151523 Thanks for the comment. I made a similar comment about divorce in my original post above. It's hard to judge others when you can't keep your own yard clean. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:38:30 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52151523 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52147753 Possibly, but we should let God decide that and not the voters. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:00:46 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52147753 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52147287 I don't try to vote any line, though I end up almost purely Democrat being somewhat liberal, but I do agree with your hold your nose and cross your fingers technique. The problem is we elect politicians. If we could write in people with pure interests in improving the world around them as opposed to career politicians out to serve their own agendas and those of the people who keep them getting re-elected we might have a chance. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:55:57 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52147287 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52145696 If you've got a hundred hungry people and ten scared turkeys voting on whether to have a Thanksgiving dinner, I'm not sure I like the turkeys' chances. The courts are there to protect everybody's rights even if they aren't the majority group. Respect doesn't mean you have to agree with someone, but you have to agree that they have the right to disagree and have their rights protected the same as you'd want yours protected. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:49:42 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52145696 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52140680 The only thing a vote would accomplish would be to let the world know what percent of voting Iowans are so insecure about their world that they would try to restrict the rights of others. Don't talk about the sanctity of marriage unless you want to outlaw divorce and make cheating a punishable offense. Their freedom doesn't weaken my heterosexual marriage. Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:31:15 +0000 http://gazetteonline.com/local-news/government/2010/01/14/senate-republicans-introduce-amendment-to-overturn-gay-marriage-in-iowa#IDComment52140680 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/81318907.html#IDComment52049147 I'd be interested. Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:59:04 +0000 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/81318907.html#IDComment52049147 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/81318907.html#IDComment51955940 Actually my stance on immigration is decently liberal and we probably see pretty eye to eye on it, I was merely referencing the use of technology to help patrol otherwise unenforceable situations. I just knew that many people who would cry big brother would have trouble arguing against a hot topic that many feel strongly about. Thanks for your response, though. Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:46:05 +0000 http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/81318907.html#IDComment51955940