Archive for Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Letters to the editor

Stop the County Road 1 project; Clarification of board’s standards; Leave evolution issue alone

July 19, 2006

Stop the County Road 1 project

To the editor:

I would like to know who comes up with these ideas as to what we need or what is best for us "Joe Taxpayers." If they worked at a job like the majority of us "Joe Taxpayers," you would not have the time or energy to think this stuff up.

First, we need new schools. Second, they thought we needed the County Road 1 project. Third, we need a new city hall and maintenance shop. Fourth, new sidewalks east of town. Fifth, now they are saying we need an aquatic center.

When is enough, enough?

This is our chance to stop this County Road 1 project. It is a proven fact that urban sprawl does not pay its own way! Citizens of Tonganoxie and Leavenworth County need to step up and speak out against these projects and save our town and community before it is too late. We can already see what has happened to us the last 15 years.

Don't wait, speak up now.

Crime is up and you can't cash checks at some stores without showing identification. It is not like it used to be.

Truth or lie? Earlier they told us Tailgate had nothing to do with the decision to choose County Road 1. Now one of the commissioners has admitted they chose County Road 1 because of Tailgate. Truth or lie, which one? If there is an abundance of money why aren't they working on our county's rock roads? They are a disgrace. We have not seen a maintenance man for several months. These roads shake you so bad it is hard to stay in your seat.

That $8 million would go a long way on the roads and other existing infrastructure without raising taxes any more than they already are. What will all these issues do to taxes? They don't want us to know what the real cost will be for "Joe Taxpayer" When is enough, enough?

Deborah K. Skeet,


Clarification of board's standards

To the editor:

Your recent article on the state board of education races was informative. There was, however, one error. Note the following:

"This so-called 'opt-in' policy means some students won't get the (human sexuality) class simply because their parents are inattentive to their school needs, according to health care experts."

The state board did vote to include advisory language on this matter in the health standards, but schools are under no obligation to follow this "guidance." Unless the state board changes their regulations, local boards are free to exercise local control and use either opt-in or opt-out language for their sexuality classes.

Paul R. Getto,


Leave evolution issue alone

To the editor:

In a story in last week's edition of The Mirror about the state board of education race harps on the old media hot-button issue of evolution.

Two courts have given that a rest and, frankly, I wish everyone else would.

Succinctly stated, the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards vs. Aguillard, decided against Biblical creationism being taught alongside evolution in public school science classes. More recently a Pennsylvania federal court decided that intelligent design could not be taught in public school science classes. These court precedents have not been successfully challenged.

Those cases may be found on the Internet. Also, anyone can go on the Web site for the Kansas Department of Education and find the science standards. Located on pages 75-77 are the seven indicators all having to do with evolution. You will find no mention of Biblical creationism or intelligent design. The closest to it is in the last indicator, which says critical thinking is allowed. Critical thinking has been a long-standing and necessary teaching method in school subject courses in order for learning to take place.

Let's go forward with the real issues, especially getting back to the basics and making an effort to lower the dropout rate.

Judith Reinhold,


Commenting has been disabled for this item.