Cannot afford to cut school money further
I am supporting both Propositions 30 and 38 because our schools must not have further decreases in funding.
Our district, Castro Valley, as well as all districts in the Bay Area have lost hundreds of dollars per student and cannot possibly continue an adequate education with further cuts.
If we want high-quality education, we must have increased funding. Our children are the future of the nation and must be cared for and supported by the taxpayers.
Even if your children are grown, as are mine, we all depend on and will someday be dependent upon our younger citizens to be educated, capable, employable and willing to assist seniors with their needs.
We are all a part of a large village and are influencing all children by how we value them. Please do your part.
Poor explanation for ranked-choice voting
The website of the Alameda County Registrar of Voters does not present a coherent explanation of ranked-choice voting.
They suppose that everyone, lock step, will fill in the three columns with three different candidates. They do not report on what will happen if I enter a candidate only in the first choice column, and leave the second and third choice columns blank.
Does every column have to have a
There are probably other voter behaviors they do not address. I have always wanted ranked voting, but the county's poor explanation makes it seem dangerous.
Measure B1 raises county taxes forever
Regarding county Measure B1, in addition to doubling the existing sales tax, has anyone noticed the word "perpetuity" in the third line of the analysis?
Perpetuity means forever. If you doubt that is the case, go to the full text section, Section 2 of Article 1, and read the first eight lines. You'll see the term "without any sunset," which translates to no end, not ever.
Yes, it says, as you read on, "unless terminated by the voters of Alameda County." But wait. Go to Section 17, which provides that unless action is taken within six months of passing of this measure, no legal action questioning the validity of the adoption of the measure or issuance of any bonds thereunder can be taken.
As usual, the devil is in the details. So think twice, then maybe again before you vote for B1.
World Bank must fund programs for girls
I was moved by Leonard Pitts' recent column about Malala Yousufzai, who was shot by the Taliban because she advocates education for girls. She is now in a hospital in Birmingham, England.
Unlike Malala, my granddaughter, also 14, does not need to risk her life to attend school.
Although girls' education improves maternal and child survival, increases income and promotes civil society, 61 million children have no hope to go to school. The world agreed to provide access for education for all children by 2015, but is not on track to achieve that.
Although the Taliban is a danger to education, not funding the effective Global Partnership for Education as the World Bank promised to do is as great a threat to children.
The World Bank must increase funding for basic education by $750 million as promised or they will leave millions children out of school in 2015.
I appreciate all the local representatives who have co-sponsored the Education for All Act of 2011, including Rep. Barbara Lee. The act supports the effective multilateral Global Partnership for Education and many effective programs.