Professional?
In recent years, Republican candidates for public office have been accused of not being to do their job or what their job is supposed to be because of personal bias.
Somehow, because President Bush or AG Ashcroft are Pro-Life, that they are unable to do their jobs because their personal views will conflict. For example, if the DOJ has to go to court to defend Roe v. Wade. Or prosecute someone for violating gun dealer laws, etc etc.
If we have public officials who are elected to do a job based on the law, and they do not follow the law, they should be removed, right?
Well, in San Francisco, we had a public office holder who is NOT doing her job because of personal bias.
Kamala Harris dun like the Death Penalty (
personal bias) but the law says that if a peace officer is murdered in the line, it's a Death Penalty case (
law). She is supposed to enforce the laws but she has shown that she in incapable of executing the law because of her personal bias.
She should recuse herself and the office from this case due to the conflict of interest and kick it up to Federal Court due to the use of an AK-47 and the suspect's connections to a "continuing criminal enterprise". RICO, yes?
This way, she cleans her hands of the case, has no control over what happens next and she can go back to not prosecuting people, like her predecessor.
- True San Franciscian,
14:47
UC Admissions
Awww.
So "qualified" UC undergrad applicants are being
turned away because of the budget...
Well that does suck, especially if you got a 3.9 (depends on where the high school is) and a 1210 on your SATs (not that impressive nowadays).
Much of the moaning is that A:
UC is offering guaranteed transfer "to a UC" after two years at a JC and B:
these students are moaning that they can't go to the UC of their choice.
The way I read the UC Master Plan, it's supposed to accept all students that make the UC admissions requirements (whatever they happen to be this week). It does NOT say that they will admit students to the UC of their choice. Whether you are at UC Riverside, Irvine or Santa Barbara, you are a student in the University of California system.
So stop moaning already; you can save money for two years at a JC and then have a spot waiting for you at a UC. These people who are moaning are probably the same ones that think that they're entitled to other people's tax money...
And as for "qualified UC applicants" being turned away, ask Chinese Americans who were bounced in the 80s and 90s because of the ethnicity. I will bet that as a group, their grades and test scores are higher than the current group of complainers. During that time, Chinese American admissions were on a downward slide.
When "affirmative action" was pulled and admissions were based on merit, guess what? Admissions began to level out and in some years, head up!
As to the last part of the article, where someone bemoans the lack of "affirmative action" (this IS the liberal Chronicle, after all), it's not that UC dun want black students, they want QUALIFIED students, regardless of color. That's what the Civil Rights movement was about, not establishing entitlements that allow one group to discriminate against another group who is traditionally apathetic to politics...
- True San Franciscian,
14:38
