Geneva school board
not pursuing best path
Our school administration has finally made a rational decision in restoring student transportation in its budget for the coming school year. A school board member, reluctantly voting in support of the budget, indicated that the restoration of the few teaching positions left open should always be our primary concern, a position reflecting a decades-long personal affiliation with the local teachers union.
The school board is elected to support the best interests of the students and the supporting taxpayers, and to integrate these interests productively and efficiently with those of the overall community, not to be a haven for special interest cronies, wannabe elitists or local political gadabouts who enjoy claiming to speak for county residents. I sincerely hope voters will keep these thoughts in mind in the future.
The school levy of last year was clearly designed to generate support from our generously pensioned public sector employees, local and federal, including teachers. These avid boosters paraded their civic pride loudly knowing the additional funding would not cost them a penny, only the working folks, incredibly sad, but very clever strategy.
Given that experience, why would the administration be surprised at the failure of any, including the most recent, spending request. The administration immediate verbal response was to hope for a better way to package the proposal in the future. Again, a sadly typical reaction.
We who live in Geneva are proud of our community and all its residents, and should not accept allowing financially- and politically-favored minorities to pursue a future that is far less beneficial for all than it could be.
Terrence W. Gasper
the right choice
I enjoy reading Tom Broad’s letters to the Star Beacon even though I may not agree with him on every point. That’s the value of free speech! Disagreement invites us to see matters from a different perspective, confirm or alter our own views and perhaps respond — with civility, we hope. Drowning out another’s viewpoint or responding with hatred is childish and undermines the foundation on which this country was built. That’s for another letter.
Tom presented powerful arguments in defense of unborn life — and then supports the taking of a life conceived in rape. Something doesn’t compute. Baby murder (sorry for the blunt term, but that’s the reality) is wrong. But it’s OK to kill a baby for the sin of its father?
Let’s agree that rape is a terrible, traumatic experience, made worse if it results in a pregnancy. Some women would find it difficult to love that child, and we do not condemn, but killing the baby only compounds the crime. If she would carry it to term, there are many people who would welcome that baby with open arms, through adoption, at no cost to the mother.
Is there any child of rape who says, “I’m sorry I was born?” I’ve talked to several adults who were thus conceived and heard heartfelt thanks that their mother gave them life.
Many famous people have come from such a background. One such was the late great Ethel Waters, soul singer of the ‘30s and ‘40s and gospel singer of the ‘50s, born to a 12-year-old girl who had been raped. Thank God the prevailing “wisdom” then was for life, not abortion. What a loss that would have been!
God said, “Choose life, that your soul may live.”
Think about it. Abortion “except for cases of rape or incest” sounds compassionate, but is it really?
Mary Ellen Blake