Can someone out there help us to understand how a United States Navy warship accidentally collided with a cargo ship?
We deserve better
Brutus
True today too
June 19, 2017We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
JFK
1 Comment | 
Uncategorized | 
Permalink
Posted by Brutus
Taking care of themselves
June 18, 2017The other day we had a horrible incident where someone shot several people who were practicing for an upcoming congressional baseball game in Washington, D.C.
The attacker was killed.
That same day there was another attack at a shipping facility in San Francisco where three people were killed and others were wounded. The attacker evidently killed himself.
Both incidents were horrible.
We subsequently heard comments that indicated solidarity among members of congress. The speaker of the house of representatives was quoted as saying “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us”.
Maybe we missed it but we have not heard any members of congress offering any kind of support for the families of the victims in San Francisco.
Does that tell us where we stand?
We deserve better
Brutus
2 Comments | Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
EPISD–free food
June 17, 2017The image below tells us about another feral initiative:
We’re not qualified to comment on the necessity of the program.
We do wonder how if it has been judged to be important to offer free food it makes sense to stop serving the food when the district is on vacation July 3-7. Are the kids to go hungry?
We also wonder what the district means when they write “All meals are free of charge and without eligibility or restrictions”. Do they mean eligibility of the person doing the eating? And when they say no restrictions do they mean that anything goes?
We do know that we deserve better.
Brutus
18 Comments | El Paso Independent School District, Federal Government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
City fears they are wrong
June 16, 2017elchuqueno.com published this article the other day.
Mr. Max Grossman wrote the article. He is a plaintiff in a proceeding that is being heard in Austin that deals with the arena issue. He wrote:
The City’s original petition for declaratory judgment makes it clear that they were expecting a challenge to the arena location. Actually, my team is arguing, contrary to what is stated in the first sentence of the El Paso Times report, that the City’s expenditure of bond money for the “arena” is illegal because El Pasoans never voted for a basketball “arena” in November 2012 but rather a “multi-purpose performing arts and entertainment facility.” The conclusion of our case brief is as follows: “A basketball arena is not a performing arts center as a matter of law. The City has misused the funds approved in the 2012 Quality of Life bond election. Its actions are illegal, invalid, and a breach of its contractual obligations to the taxpayers of El Paso. The Court should reject the City’s request to validate its actions, issue a declaratory judgment that the Project described in them RFQ is not a project the voters approved, and enjoin the the City from expending any funds from the Quality of Life bond on the Project described in the RFQ.”
According to the article a hearing was held the other day. In attendance representing the city were their out of town attorneys, their bond counsel, the city attorney and “others from her department”.
Does the city think they will lose?
If the city feels that they are right then why are they asking an out of town court to validate their authority to build the facility? According to a May 5, 2107 Times article
“The city is seeking a court hearing to validate its stance that the controversial multipurpose arena can be built in Union Plaza in Downtown El Paso, according to documents filed this week in Austin.”
The city could have filed their motion in El Paso but they did not. Filing in Austin makes it less convenient for us to participate. It also gives some of our city employees some travel time.
It looks as through their are at least two issues here. One is does the city have the right to build an arena when the voters were asked to approve a “multi-purpose performing arts and entertainment facility”? Another relates to the location.
The image below is from the ballot that voters were given back in 2012:
It makes no mention of downtown in either language.
The city however has taken this position:
Why would the city do that? The ballot language did not say downtown yet the bond election ordinance did. Shouldn’t we expect more from the legion of city attorneys? Shouldn’t we expect more from city council?
We deserve better
Brutus
8 Comments | City government | Permalink
Posted by Brutus
elpasospeak 
You must be logged in to post a comment.