Mr Batey

He's been exemplary, if you agree with his ultra relgious agenda. 

In my opinion,  he's done nothing but take the attention away from real issues.   ie  Kern's outrageous drop out rate.

BTW  I took your father's sophmore biology class,  way back when.  And your mom's English class.  Gad it's a small town.

What a haughty attitude for Mr. Batey to have.

I completely agree with you, Lois.

The lemmings think the majority is always right~ look were it gets them.

I love a gracious winner.

CHAD VEGAS, 70469,  28.60%

BILL PERRY, 56390, 22.88%

BOB J. HAMPTON,  41343, 16.78% 
 
 

If only one seat had been open it would have been Vegas who's leaving.   Bill Perry and Bob Hampton split the vote of those who opposed Vegas.  Otherwise,  either of them would have prevailed with  39.66% of the vote as opposed to Vegas' 28.6%.  I hope Mr Vegas is not deluding himself with the hope that two wins gives him a mandate!.

A haughty attitude is right  and a mis-spelled word was too funny for me.  BWHAHAHAHAHA!!

It's clear that Kern High School District Trustee Bryan Batey does not know how to use spell check, or is so assured of his self righteousness that spelling does not matter for him. Given the woeful academic standing for Kern County high school students compared to the rest of California's high school students, it is no surprise to see a guy like this, and his apostles of scholastic antipathy, shaping policy for this battered district.

Hey Batey,

Over 100 thousand voters, 72%, wanted Vegas out.

Get It?

And Jaz. School board spelling should make up a good two hours of Showtime. :>)

Lois:

Thanks again for an enlightening post. Batey has the courage to out himself now in the most open way possible after he thinks there exists a Vegas mandate. Such will be his (and Mettler's and Vegas') political demise.

The truth is, and Batey must know this, that Vegas and Mettler send the Superintendent daily, multiple messages about trifling, ideological and contentious topics every day.

The professional staff of the KHSD spend much of their days baby sitting these two and their agenda.

Next round, we will get organized and run and back only one 'replacement' candidate. The post by AudreyB is correct, as all who attended the Trustee debate at Temple Beth El know. ALL of the candidates stated that they were opposed to Vegas and were entered the race to try and make sure he wouldn't get re-elected. That being the cause, it shouldn't have been hard, for an organized group or individual, to convince some to drop out and thus heal the split of the vote which is ultimately what got Vegas his majority.

btw, the cutesy tenor of his email is exactly what I have written about in other blogs on this site (E Pluribus Unum - shameless plug). It is the last vestige of a dying political methodology.

    Mr.  Batey, 

  I am wondering what these folks have against  Mr. Vegas.  We live in a day when evil is called good and good is called evil.  I believe it's only Mr. Vegas' unashamed confession of Christ and his belief in the Bible that have these folks so riled up. This is viewed as a bad thing in the eyes of some.  

  Mr. Vegas will always stand for biblical principles and contends for what is right.  He has the "audacity" to believe in Creation and to call abortion and homosexuality wrong, and this makes him an enemy of "progressives". 

  Well if "progress" means abandoning faith in Jesus Christ and His word, then so far Bakersfield is not going that way.  And on this Thanksgiving Day this is one more thing we should ALL be thankfull for.  

Lois,

The gentleman should have used spell check but for you to point out his spelling error was quite unprofesional.  I can see you now. You and all your cubicle buddies having a good chuckle.

It is no wonder why the world is in such crisis as it is when even ordinary Americans just can't wait to jump on someone for something as petty as this.

How can we set an example for the world when even we can't stand each other.

I am not a Chad Vegas suporter. I did not vote for him.

Mr. Vegas will always stand for biblical principles and contends for what is right. 

And that is wrong for the students. Especially non-Christian students of other denominations.

Name one thing Vegas has done to inprove the school system.

Hm...

I'm sure they're suffering for Jesus.

Ms. Henry, I bet they talk about you when you're not around...

--virgil

jcowherd:

It isn't unprofessional to point out that a person who is in charge of education seems to understand his role in it so little, apparently, that he doesn't bother to check his spelling.

Pettiness or symptomology? At any rate, you may notice that Lois' blog is listed under "Opinion" category. I think that is enough license to throw a couple digs at elected officials.

OK, I acknowledge that it was pretty snarky of me to point out the spelling error. Normally, I let those things slide because A) emails and blog posts are a bit more informal and B) I'm CERTAINLY not perfect in that realm (nor any other for that matter).

I was struck by what I felt was an incredibly snarky tone in Mr. Batey's email and  the fact that he's in charge of our young people's education. So, I admit I just couldn't resist sending a little of that snark back his way.

I shall try to refrain from such pettiness in the future (though I can't make any promises. Please refer to my first parenthetical statement about my lack of perfection!).

But I don't think it was "unprofessional" of me, nor do I feel such admittedly juvenile behaior on my part is a reason that our world is in "crisis."

Quoting Lois: "But I don't think it was "unprofessional" of me, nor do I feel such admittedly juvenile behaior on my part is a reason that our world is in "crisis." "

Wow Lois, it's quite comical that you would be criticizing somebody for their spelling mistake when you were also so careless.

Get off your high horse.

PoliticalJunkie:

You're a little late on this bandwagon, aren't you?

Not only do I offer a mea culpa for picking on Mr. Batey's poor spelling, but I also clearly cop to my own imperfections in spelling and typo foibles, especially when I don't have an editor, such as on a blog.

At least my typo offered you some comic relief, which, based on your previous posts, you're in serious need of. (Just for kicks,  tell me what grammatical sin I just committed in the previous sentence. You have 3 minutes...GO!)

What a bunch of Lois Followers..............................Cannot think for themselves.

Just have to jump on Lois pointing out a spelling error and take flight with the blogging bagging Just because lois pointed it out.

Oh, okaY swright.

Thanks for letting everyone know ....Do you think there's anything else you may have missed regarding Lois and her followers?

Hm.. 

You  B-town genius, you. 

--virgil

Ended a sentence with a preposition.

(I decided to create a sentence fragment for my foible.)

Amirite?

Ralph Bailey could answer Lois' question.

"Ended a sentence with a preposition."

What did you bring up that antiquated rule that I didn't want to be reminded about up for?  :)

Lois wrote:

"Majority rule doesn’t confer righteousness. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights, so the majority can’t trample our basic civil and human rights on a tide of momentary popularity."
   

    The Bill of Rights states our rights which protect we the people from our government.

And "You're a little late on this bandwagon, aren't you?"

    So...we now have a time limit to respond to a post? Sheesh. Since TBC circulation is below 50%, me thinks Lois would be   pleased that folks would respond at any point.

I walk through the blog quickly, muttering under my breath, "separation of church and state... separation of church and state..."

CrankPin:

YOU WIN!!!!

DogGone:

The Bill of Rights also protects us from one another.

As for my bandwagon comment, I was referring to the fact that I'd already written my mea culpa.

As for TBC circ...hmmmmm....what does "below 50%" mean?

Well...I suppose in a side door kind of way, the 2nd amendment does protect us from one another. None of the others do.

PoliticalJunkie made one post. Shouldn't have a time limit. 

TBC circulation below 50? Seems obvious to me. Be nice to guys who are visiting your website. The just might subscribe to the Red Californian.

DogGone:

The Bill of Rights protects minority rights despite majority rule. That means the majority can't pass a law restricting say freedom of religion. Obviously it keeps the government from doing such things but it also keeps the mob from doing away with basic rights. It's one of those brilliant concepts that truly separates us from other countries. And is also often misunderstood.

How much more clear can I be about PoliticalJunkie's post? He jumped on me AFTER I admitted to being juvenile. There's no time limit, certainly. He/She is free to post what they want. But I'm also free to point out how silly it is to join the bash fest when someone's already said uncle.

Your "50 %" comment makes absolutely no sense. Below 50 percent of WHAT? Our circ of a year ago? Ten years ago? Of  penetration rates in mid-sized markets that are considered profitable by industry standards?

If you want to fling around numbers to try and make some vague point about this company, they should at least mean something.

It sounds like he's saying that if "the people" pass a law, it isn't "the government" doing it.

He is wrong, of course.  When something becomes law, it becomes the government, regardless of where the law originated.

There is an Abraham Lincoln quotation on the tip of my tongue.  ;)

The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. Last time I read them was Sunday. Show me any which are directed towards protecting the citizens fron each other. Don't know how much more clear I can be.

50% of YOUR market. Last I heard, your market penetration was mighty low.

AD, me thinks Lois has enough witts to defend herself.

doggone: welcome to Constitutional Law - really a very interesting subject.

You're right - there is no explicit mention about protection of minority rights from majority will anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

You would have to read some Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, The Federalist Papers and related articles and documents. Suffice it to say that this was an issue that was utmost in the Founding Fathers' minds when they wrote our Constitution.

As an example, read this from Federalist #51, an explanation why a diverse society is essential as a protection of our rights: 

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sect..."

You might be particulary interested in the part where the author points out that the protection of civil rights should be equal to the protection of religious rights.

My comment on the Bill of Rights was because Lois wrote "The Bill of Rights also protects us from one another." My point was NOT that the entire Constitution doesn't address protecting us from one another, but that the Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments, and that those 10 limit the Government on our rights.

DogGone:

The Bill of Rights protects our basic rights regardless of who is trying to take them, the government or a stupid mob that momentarily passes a discriminatory law. No, none of the first 10 amendments SAYS "Hey, you citizens, you can't do this."

What happens is someone in the minority who's being discriminated against because of an illegal govenment action or UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, sues and the judicial branch of the government looks at the Bill of Rights and says, "Nope, not allowed."

So, YES, the Bill of Rights protects us against each other.

Its probably best not to argue with a reporter on Bill of Rights and Constitutional rights views and aspects. Reporters and Columnists usually are quite familiar with the ins and outs of both subjects.

I see it quite often because they must hide behind them in order to write and print what they say and feel by justifying it through freedom of speech. So they tend to know what they say so they can quote them when called upon or challenged.