[Vision2020] Re: Not a city resident (Donovan Arnold)
whayman at adelphia.net
Sun Oct 2 08:38:30 PDT 2005
You perhaps left something out of your response. Only if one voted on a
federal level could one criticize thusly. And, of course, avoid other
On Sunday, October 2, 2005, at 08:20 AM, josephc at mail.wsu.edu wrote:
> Mr. Arnold says, "if the parent does not live in the city, the parent
> not have a say in how the city operates and functions."
> Doesn't it follow that no one has a right to criticize a jurisdiction
> unless they live in that jurisdiction? Thus, anyone from Moscow
> criticizing the city of New Orleans or the state of Louisiana for the
> that they handled things after Katrina was wrong to do so. It is fine
> criticize the federal government but we can't criticize New Orleans or
> Louisiana since none of us live there.
> And it would seem that neither Doug Wilson nor anyone else has the
> to criticize public schools in general. As Mr. Donovan has pointed out,
> most public schools fall under the jurisdiction of the state. Unless we
> live in that state, we can't be critical of its schools.
> So where were you, Mr. Arnold, when your conservative friends were
> their opinions about topics over which, according to your principles,
> had no right to speak?
> For the record, I live in Moscow and I am happy to have Rose and Joan
> Melynda share their opinions about the town. And not just because I
> to agree with them. What we need is more discourse about Moscow, not
> of it. We should be grateful to get any feedback that we get, whether
> agree with it or not.
> One more thing, Mr. Arnold. Could you please tell me where I might find
> the footnotes to the First Amendment, the ones detailing the
> to free speech and criticism of governmental agencies that you
> below? So far I seem to have missed them.
> Joe Campbell
>> "Does someone who lives in the Moscow School District,
>> with children or grandchildren attending Moscow public
>> schools, have any valid reasons to be concerned about
>> the affairs of the city where their children attend
>> Interesting, Ted.
>> First, the City of Moscow does not have, or control,
>> any public schools.
>> Second, the public schools that are located inside
>> Moscow are controlled by the Idaho State School
>> District 281, not the city.
>> So, logically, it would not follow that the parent be
>> given control of a government that does not control
>> the school when it is the school they want control
>> over. They need control of the school district.
>> So, logically, yes, I support a legal guardian being
>> able to vote and have some say in the school district.
>> If a parent has children attending school within a
>> city, the parent has a right and say of how the school
>> operates and functions. But if the parent does not
>> live in the city, the parent does not have a say in
>> how the city operates and functions.
>> If a parent that does not like the way a city operates
>> and functions, lives outside the city, and has their
>> child is in a school in the city, they can vote to
>> move the school outside the jurisdiction of the city.
>> Might I also be so bold, Ted, as to point out that the
>> person complaining about city law was not complaining
>> about schools, but about city code, and not for
>> allowing schools, but getting rid of them.
>> Take Care,
>> Donovan J Arnold
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
More information about the Vision2020