This world would be so much different if we never made mistakes, but unfortunately, every person does. It can range from small mistakes to massive, life-ending ones, but it doesn’t change that the act of making a mistake is universal. This is the case, unless you’re on or work with the Lubbock City Council.

This perception of God-given perfection has been commonplace within other organizations in the city (Public School Teachers will likely know of whom I am speaking), but I had always hoped that we could expect more out of our city government. Unfortunately, it’s not to be corrected anytime soon, because the officials that Lubbockites have elected not only feel that they’re beyond general reproach, but are also above state law as well.

The Lubbock City Council has a very questionable record on the Texas Open Meetings Act. There are two instances that seem to be blatant violations, and now allegations of a third violation are beginning to surface. According to KFYO News and verified by City of Lubbock officials, the council had a quorum of members at a District 2 Town Hall meeting without billing it as a special council meeting, since business was to be discussed, and technically, a binding vote could take place. The city lamely claimed they did nothing wrong, and Councilwoman Linda DeLeon claimed that KFYO was lying.

Apparently, that was just scratching the surface. Six of the seven members of the council attended the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce D.C. Fly-in, in Washington D.C. in early March. According to a reliable source from City Hall, On March 7^th, The Farcical Four, which consists of Mayor Miller, Councilwoman Jones, Councilwoman DeLeon, and Councilman Price met at the offices of Meyers and Associates, the City’s lobbying firm.

At some point between 9 and 9:15 AM, one of the four council members present closed the door to the conference room in which they were meeting, which is a glaring violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. According to Lubbock’s News Radio 1340, “A closed-door meeting of the city council is illegal if it is not posted for executive session.” The city’s response was the same. They claim to have never violated the act, because the matters being discussed were “personal.” There is no proof of this, however.

I’m continually amazed that, when I think that the handling of city government cannot get any worse, they always find a way to keep lowering that bar. The city council, with the exception of John Leonard, has decided to trade Lubbock citizens’ safety and due process rights on promises of unrealistic dollar figures through the imminent installation of red light cameras. On the national press stage, the council and Mayor Miller have brought us embarrassment by touting the days of fasting and prayer in exchange for rain, and then the Chippendales debacle.

At the illegally handled District 2 town hall turned council meeting, Miller made some feel good speeches to the attendees. According to the Daily Toreador, Miller was quoted as saying “That is what our pledge to you tonight is; we’ll always be honest with you.” Later, he said "What I would like to encourage you to do tonight is some good, positive talk. I am so grateful to be your mayor. My favor that I'm asking of you is to hold me accountable."

While Miller’s attempt to seem interested in what his constituency thinks may sound good to an audience, members of his city council have demonstrated that they just don’t care when they walked out on Wes Nessman at a town hall meeting, when he dared to voice his concerns over what they were doing to our city. The Daily Toreador quoted Nessman as saying “"They've walked out on a meeting because they're not ready to field questions. He (Miller) is not taking care of business and it's time this man answers some questions. This meeting was supposed to be about progress. On Friday night, Lubbock was sent back 25 years.”

Sadly, the farcical four of the City Council weren’t doing enough by making Lubbock look like one of the most backward cities in the nation, but they also have to break state law while doing so. The entire heart of the problem is that these people have forgotten that they work for their constituents, and not the other way around. They act as if the entire city works for them, and they aren’t to be held accountable for their actions, no matter what. Maybe one of them could show the rest of us how to walk on water too.

I’ve never cared about what most celebrities believe politically. I usually judge them by their talent and acting ability, and politics doesn’t usually enter in. Of course I make fun of Barbra Streisand, some due to her political views, but mainly because I don’t like anything she’s done. Often topping the list of politically charged celebrities lately are the Dixie Chicks. Now nominated for five Grammy awards, (at the time that I write this, the Grammy Awards have yet to take place) they’ve been catapulted into the limelight again, more for their anti-Bush rhetoric than their music.

Many media outlets have jumped on the chance to once again report on their favorite “bad girls” of country music. Even though they’ve been in the media spotlight for a while, everything has been reignited with their Grammy nomination. While I won’t start throwing well-deserved aspersions about the liberal media, the Dixie Chicks have enjoyed gaining great publicity from their political rantings, while they were supposed to be serious musicians.

The Dixie Chicks threw themselves into the political spotlight in 2003, when on tour in Britain promoting their album “Top of the world,” lead singer Natalie Maines commented to the crowd “Just so you know, we are ashamed the president of the United States is from the state of Texas.” The girls came home to a very unhappy listener base, and were surprised to find their former fans getting rid of their Dixie Chicks merchandise.

After taking three years to formulate and release their first new album after their jump into the partisan side of music, they’ve changed their style quite a bit, moving towards more country-rock to appeal more to the ones that aren’t quite as likely to be offended by their political babblings, even though Maines was quoted as saying “We'd rather be the rock stars of country than the lame-asses of rock.” Yet again, they contradicted themselves “We never in a million years knew people were listening to what we said. Like Emily said, we never use the stage as a place to preach our political beliefs or spiritual beliefs. And we still won't. And that's not what I was doing that night either. It seemed odd to not mention anything about what was going on, granted I mentioned it in the wrong way,” Maines said in 2003.

Despite their claims that they wouldn’t “use the stage as a place to preach our political beliefs or spiritual beliefs,” the Dixie Chicks performed in numerous “Vote for Change” concerts with the likes of Bruce Springsteen, REM, and Dave Matthews. Even though the concerts were attended quite well, they failed to pull the results the performers were hoping for. For instance, they gave six “Vote for Change” concerts in Ohio, which much to the performer’s chagrin, still went to President Bush in 2004.

Mickey Hart, former Grateful Dead member had a few words about politically charged music now. “I think people are paranoid. I think that if they speak out, they think they're gonna get whacked by the government. It's pretty oppressive now. Look at the Dixie Chicks. They got whacked.” There is much evidence that even though they’ve been outspoken against the current administration, the Dixie Chicks are still alive, selling records, and performing at the Grammy Awards show illustrates that they are far from having been “whacked.” Hart also illustrates with his quote that drugs are bad.

When asked about the Dixie Chicks’ commentary, he said “The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street. I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq.”

I’ve never regarded them as good musicians, because I’ve always thought they were terrible. I’ve never liked their songs, I’ve never liked their voices, and I can vaguely remember a time whenever I heard “Goodbye Earl” that my ambitions would turn to making a real-life enactment of Grand Theft Auto 3. The fact remains that even though I regard them going overseas to begin their bashing of our President as cowardly, if I liked their music, I’d likely still listen to it. Luckily for me, that won’t be a problem with the Dixie Chicks anytime soon.

New Decisions in red light cameras still bad.

Lubbock Traffic Engineer Jere Hart and the Lubbock City Council have been under great pressures from citizens and the media since the announcement of red light camera installation. The scrutiny is well placed, because Hart and the Lubbock City Council have chosen to ignore numerous research findings on the effects of red light cameras from different Departments of Transportations from around the world.

There have been many arguments about why the council has chosen to have these cameras installed, and the real intentions finally surfaced late last month. According to the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim Gilbreath commented on the process of deciding between which companies will supply the city of Lubbock with the red light cameras. “When you get down to the point when you're splitting hairs, money has to come into play.” Councilman Floyd Price didn’t necessarily share the same sentiment. “We are so focused on how much money we're going to make. Are we placing those cameras for the sole purpose of making a dollar or are we doing it for public safety?”

The council has narrowed down the manufacturers of the cameras to two companies. ATS of Scottsdale, Arizona and Redflex, based out of Australia. ATS has promised the city $100,000 more over the five year contract in comparison with Redflex. This extra income is in addition to the 3.3 million dollars the city estimates it will gain during the length of the contract. Gilbreath also added that ATS has connections in the area with a local collection company for collecting fines. If the city implements 12 more cameras from the company in the first year, they would likely be collecting an extra $600,000 over a ten year period.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with Gilbreath’s claim that monetary decisions should be a factor, the fact that this money would come out of our pockets is quite bothersome. It’s been very blatant that the council has been acting purely out of budget concerns instead of concern for the wellbeing of the citizens of Lubbock. They may argue the opposite, but had they heeded the warnings of numerous reports of the detriments of red light cameras, the council would not have given the cameras a second thought.

The Australian Study of Red Light Cameras found that cameras increased accidents. “The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC (Red Light Cameras) at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.” The most extensive American study on red light cameras is the “Burkey-Obeng Study” conducted for the North Carolina Urban Transit Institute found that “The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.” They go as far to brand red light cameras as a “detriment to safety”.

The Virginia Department of Transportation found that red light cameras increased wrecks overall in Fairfax county by 8-17%, rear endings increased by 50-71%, and overall injury between 7-24%. These numbers are fairly drastic for objects that are supposedly installed for the motorist’s protection.

Most often, the yellow light times are shortened along with the installation of these devices to increase revenue, but KCBD news in Lubbock did a study on how long our yellow times currently are. According to KCBD, Jere Hart was quoted as saying that “A yellow light time is important because it gives people an adequate amount of time to stop before they get to an intersection and gives them adequate time to drive on through the intersection.” The national standard is one second of yellow per 10 miles per hour as designated by the speed limit. KCBD found that many lights in Lubbock were far under this standard, including eight out of the twelve intersections slated to receive red light cameras.

While our local officials may try to feign concern over their constituents’ safety, it’s our job not to believe them when their budgets are at stake. They can’t care much when they’re instituting things that are proven to increase accidents and injury. At least our wallets might be protected in a wreck caused by their decisions, so they can try and strip more money out of them.

Saturday, thousands of people joined together under the guise of a “Rally for Peace” to voice their displeasure over the Iraq war. They were serenaded by cries against the Bush administration by noted patriots such as Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and “Hanoi Jane” Fonda. The stage from which they preached their message of what they consider “peace” also held a casket draped with an American flag and combat boots, symbolizing the American soldiers who have died in the conflict.

"Silence is no longer an option” claimed Fonda, who had been absent from anti-war protests for 34 years, due to her actions during the Vietnam War, most notably being photographed sitting atop an anti-aircraft battery used to shoot down United States planes. Fonda also participated in radio broadcasts for the Vietnamese communist regime to convince the United States government to “consider the consequences of their actions.” According to the Associated Press, “she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but now needed to speak out.”

President Bush recently authorized 21,500 extra troops to serve in Iraq, which will deploy in early February, and likely spawned the major interest in this particular protest. When the protests were broached with National Security adviser Gordon Johndroe, he said that the President "understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq and the new strategy is designed to do just that."

This particular protest was organized by United Peace and Justice, who were counting on at least 100,000 protesters, but the numbers fell quite short of their goal. The event was peaceful, with the only real excitement occurring when around 300 people attempted to rush the Capitol building, only to be met by police to block them from entering. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D- MI) spoke to the crowd on some possible intentions of using the Congressional money flow to halt the war. "The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Now only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

I can understand how some naïve individuals feel that they are doing the world a favor by participating in a “Rally for Peace” as this particular protest has been billed. Unfortunately, their idea of peace doesn’t exist. The speakers of these events try to convince their listeners that if the United States were to withdraw all troops from Iraq, there would be a major outbreak of peace in the Middle East. All Iraqis would live together in perfect harmony, and would have done so under Saddam Hussein’s regime had, to quote Jane Fonda; the “mean-spirited, vengeful administration” of President Bush not intervened.

I like to hope that the supporters of events such as this protest don’t actually believe in the manner I just described, but it’s difficult to think otherwise. Instead of looking for real solutions to the problems in the world, these protesters are looking for a scapegoat. Instead of placing the blame of more problems in Iraq on the insurgents that murder our soldiers regularly to uphold their violent, cruel lifestyles, these protesters prefer to blame our President, who has steadily been committed to helping the Iraqi citizens.

As long as these protesters have a method of inflating their self-assigned moral superiority, they’ll keep finding scapegoats for all the problems in the world. While it would be much easier to have only one man to blame for all the problems on Earth, it’s just not that simple. President Bush doesn’t want our soldiers to die, and he’s not looking to take over the world. He does realize that there are people alive that want Americans to die, solely because we do not collectively believe as they want us to. Iraq and Al Qaeda were a thorn in the side of the Clinton administration due to Al Qaeda financed firms and businesses violating the United Nations sanctions on Iraq in the mid 1990’s. Amazingly enough, as soon as Bush was elected, most decided to conveniently forget about these findings from the Clinton White House.

It would be lovely if all the problems in the world were caused solely by one United States President, so all of Earth could return to peace and harmony after he leaves office. Unfortunately, that’s not how things work. Bush has tried to help people to the best of his ability, but always ends up the target of blame. While I don’t respect their message, I respect the protester’s rights to say what they want. It’s very lucky for them that we live in a country where it’s alright to be wrong.

Being a teacher is not an easy job. If it’s done right and one really cares about their students, the teacher will be in for lots of work and long hours in a job where trying to impart knowledge can be hit or miss. Even if a teacher manages to imbue their students with the information that they’re teaching, there will always be administrations getting in the way. Not all administrations are bad, of course. They’re a necessity for any educational system. The Lubbock Independent School District however, does not fall into the “good” category.

I spent my entire public schooling career in LISD, and in that time I had teachers that I absolutely loathed and teachers that I still admire to this day, as most students probably did. Finding public school teachers that are truly dedicated to their profession for long hours and mediocre pay is increasingly difficult, and many teachers aren’t finding it worth it to stay in LISD anymore. They knew the problems with the profession going in but did it anyway. Now the administration is making it unbearable.

High Schools in LISD are run on block schedules, which is fairly common. Before this year, the teachers had two conference periods, coming out to one per day. This gave them a chance to talk with parents, help other students, get their lessons ready, and grade a few hundred papers. Someone within the confines of the LISD central office, or the “Ivory Tower” as I like to call it, decided to take away one conference period per eight classes to give the teachers one extra class.

This not only increases their workload, but reduces their time in which to do it. This results in ticked off teachers who either unfortunately take out their angst on their students or leave the district entirely. This not only makes the teachers’ lives much more difficult, but it affects the education given to the students of LISD.

I visited my old high school recently and talked with some of my old teachers. None were happy with their current situations at all, and the general mood of the school was angry. Not only did they integrate the ninth graders into the high schools when the campuses were not ready, but now they’re cutting their work time as well. The general teacher malaise is district-wide. This affects the students as well, but then again, I don’t remember when the students actually mattered for the administration of LISD.

LISD is not interested in teachers and administrators who are passionate about their jobs, but the advancement opportunities for yes-men are endless for those that are more interested in promoting the district’s pet projects, whether they’re harmful or not. The administration is way out of touch with what the teachers and students need, and can’t see outside of their own interests.

The district is also less successful than many others in the area, despite having a good amount of money. In the 2006 State Public School Accountability Rankings, which is based on the students’ performance on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test (TAKS), graduation and dropout rates. Lubbock ISD only had 6% ranked exemplary, in comparison to San Angelo’s 17%. LISD had 35% ranked as recognized, 53% acceptable, and 6% unacceptable.

While I don’t really like standardized testing, these numbers show that something isn’t working with LISD, and the administration is not letting the teachers fix it. Quite a few teachers are required to follow a certain curriculum that has been consistently unsuccessful, and the district apparently doesn’t appreciate the calls to change the system, resulting in these low scores.

Even in the light of these low scores, LISD superintendent Wayne Havens, who technically isn’t even qualified to be a superintendent, claims that he’s happy that these results top 2005. I’d love to get paid 200 thousand a year as he does in his job to continue the glorious standard of mediocrity that Lubbock ISD has held. I’m sure that the dingy standard will be upheld with Haven’s successor next year.

If this district wants to keep any decent teachers, they must get their act together and start working with the teachers for the students. When the teachers get dictated to from people that don’t care about them or their students’ education, it affects the entire district. When the LISD administration begins giving a damn about their students and teachers, the district will get better. Until then, they can keep living down to their current standards.

Iran has never been a fan of the United States or Israel. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been an outspoken opponent of Israel existing, and also is pushing for his country to develop nuclear power. He has made no effort to cover his hatred of anyone that supports Israel. Ahmadinejad has tried to institute policies where Jews and Christians would have to wear identifying marks on their clothing, and has appeared as a keynote speaker at a conference directed entirely at removing Israel entirely and returning it to the Muslims.

Now Russia has teamed together with Iran in the battle for Iran to gain nuclear power and military credibility. Russia is delivering missile defense and rockets systems to Iran as recently as last Friday, and helping them out with their “peaceful” nuclear program. Their idea of peaceful must be different from mine, because it’s absolutely moronic to encourage nuclear production to a country that has recently hosted a conference called “The world without Zionism” in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying “"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” By Imam, he is talking about Ayat Allah Khomeini, a leader of Iran.

Ahmadinejad has no shortage of public hatred towards Israel and the United States for supporting Israel, and Russia is happily playing into their hatred for their own economic gain. Russia and China, close partners with Iran for years both hold vetoes on the United Nations Security Council have helped to avoid sanctions against Iran thus far. The contract for these TOR-M1 air defense systems sold by Russia to Iran was signed at the last of 2005 for $700 million. Russia upholds their original statement that the missiles only have a range capable of protecting Iranian air space.

Al-Jazeera quoted Ahmadinejad in March of 2006 as saying: "The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam.” The word “oppressor” is used by their government to refer to the United States. Amazingly, even with hate-filled speech such as this from the President of the country, the UN Security Council still apparently has no problem allowing them to have whatever weapons they want or nuclear weapons under the guise of a peaceful energy program.

Israel responded to Ahmadinejad’s cries for removing their country from the earth. Spokesman Mark Regev said "Today, Israelis heard two extremists speak openly about destroying the Jewish state. One was the new president of Iran, and the other was the leader of Hamas, Mahmoud Zahar. "And it appears the problem with these extremists is that they followed through on their violent declarations with violent actions."

Then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said “"I think it reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions." Even a former Iranian foreign minister Ebrahim Yazdi claimed that Ahmadinejad’s remarks were unnecessary and were harmful to Iran’s place in the international community. “Such comments provoke the international community against us. It's not to Iran's interests at all. It's harmful to Iran to make such a statement.”

With Russia and China behind them, Iran does not feel that they have to care what the international community thinks, because they’ll defend Iran to the best of their overpowered ability in the United Nations. If the UN were a worthwhile organization, the Islamic Republic of Iran would be heavily sanctioned, to avoid the deletion of Israel due to religious anger.

Ahmadinejad said to President Bush in a letter written in May of 2006: “Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.” Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear capabilities. Ahmadinejad has shown his true intentions repeatedly through his vitriolic outbursts against anyone who disagrees with him, or happens to not be a member of the Islamic faith, unless they’re selling them weapons, of course.

I like Lubbock. It’s a nice size, there’s plenty to do, and it’s not all that expensive to make a nice life for your family here. Sadly, the last part is changing. As I’ve brought up in a few articles before, I’m not a fan of our illustrious mayor or most of the city council, with only two exceptions. Thanks to Mayor Miller, red light cameras are about to adorn 12 intersections, our taxes are higher, and he’s tried to flaunt the name of God wherever he can for his own personal gain. Unfortunately, some Lubbockites thought enough of his self-serving practice of dodging his ideas on policy through evangelism to bring him in as mayor.

Shortly after his installment, he began bringing in prayer and fasting days for Lubbock. This is no surprise due to his political track record so far, especially after trying to bully the local media into supporting his policies through sending out an actual prayer list. I couldn’t believe it at first, but after reading it, I was no longer surprised, just incredibly disappointed.

Miller begins his public prayer with one of the most arrogant statements I have ever heard from someone who actually holds an elected office, and isn’t a televangelist. “There is no question that we are getting some attention from the Enemy as the attacks are more frequent and personal. We are putting on the armor and taking refuge in Him everyday. Therefore, we are not discouraged or disheartened...but we are certainly challenged. Thanks to so many for lifting us up in prayer.”

I am not anti-religion by any means, but I do tend to think it’s unscrupulous to make public prayers condemning those that simply don’t agree with his policies. What one does in private on matters such as that is their personal business, but when it is emailed to quite a few churches in the area and made public for political gain, the practice is quite reprehensible.

Mayor Miller caught quite a bit of flack from constituents at Southcrest Baptist Church, here in Lubbock. According to NewsRadio 1420 AM here in Lubbock, members of South Crest Baptist Church peppered Mayor David Miller with questions about his support of the annexation. At one point a woman said, “What’s going on here is wrong.” That was followed by other members saying responsively “Amen. It is illegal. It is wrong.” And again, “Amen!”

Miller tried to reassure the somber sobers that the move was strictly about revenue, but it was refused by the congregants. “If the citizens want liquor inside the city limits of Lubbock they may chose to have it through the democratic process. I’m not offering that to them. I’m offering a way to generate a small amount of additional revenues that will offset the property taxes by half a penny per year at least and then let the chips fall where they may on all these other things.”

Annexing the strip is one of the few things that Miller said he would work to do while campaigning that he’s actually executed in office. While I don’t really care about annexing the strip too much, because I don’t know if it will be totally worth the delivering of city services out there, but I’m not angrily opposing it. While I could see how this would be interpreted as a step in the right direction for package liquor sales in the city, which I adamantly support, Miller removes most hope for that happening anytime soon. According to KCBD news, “Mayor Miller says turning Lubbock wet won’t be on a ballot any time soon.”

Southcrest Baptist Senior Pastor David Wilson said to NewsRadio 1420, “they fear this will be just the first step to city wide liquor sales. “It desensitizes people and they begin to use the argument ‘Well, it’s already technically in the city limits,’ if it’s annexed. And that will make it that much easier to bring it into the city limits. And that’s our biggest fear.” Miller worked his hardest to reassure them that the city would not be following Wolfforth’s lead in allowing package liquor sales.

I don’t see a problem in being able to buy beer and wine in a grocery store. That’s what many people are used to in their hometowns, and there have been no problems, other than things don’t have the exorbitant prices that they do at the strip. If Miller could do one decent thing for Lubbock, he wouldn’t hide from the idea of allowing us to get away from the strip’s monopoly.