Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

7 Comment(s)

Candidates were ignored

To The Editor:

Regarding S. Boyd Anderson's column Monday, "Municipal Predictions: Who's in? Who's out?":

Boyd Anderson may have an opinion, as does everyone else! He should not be allowed to influence readers by only what he knows.

He did not list my name, Anya Trites nor Roy MacMullin.

Mr.. Anderson, did you do any research before writing this article? Do you even know our names? Do you know anything about us? What are our platforms?

At last, we should all have the same exposure in the news.

So I challenge you Mr.. Anderson to do some reporting about the honest and hard-working candidates that feel we have a shot in this election.

We live in a society that accepts, "Anything is possible and I believe the time has come for change."

He states, "Katherine Barnes will continue to out poll everyone at large. There are two other candidates after incumbent Pierre Boudreau's seat, but being new is a disadvantage."

Who says it is a disadvantage?

Maybe it is an advantage?

Being new may be just what we need in our city.

Anya Trites,

Moncton

(Via e-mail)

Why no seatbelts?

To The Editor:

I believe that the decision the government is making about the child booster seat law is a great. I have no issues with keeping our children safe while in a vehicle.

My question to the lawmakers is this: why is it thousands of our children can ride the school buses twice a day without seatbelts?

Daniel Crossman,

Moncton

(Via e-mail)

A plan must be implemented well

To The Editor:

On April 9 I called the School District 2 office to inquire about the status of the pre-kindergarten assessments (my daughter was tested on Jan. 15). I was informed that the assessments were still in Fredericton and that analyses had to be redone because the person overseeing the process (Mr.. Doug Willms) failed to divide children by age in the first round of analyses.

This past weekend I read an article stating that the results were ready and parents would receive a "very clear letter with the results so that parents can really see what each domain is, see sample questions and understand where their child falls within the scores."

I see no mention of intervention programs. Given that there are only a few weeks left in the school year, maybe there is not sufficient time to follow through with the intervention segment of this new program. Even if intervention sessions will be held, many parents may not be able to change their schedules to attend on such short notice.

This experience has left me with two main concerns (and many more):

1. The pre-kindergarten assessment is the first of MANY new tests to be introduced to the New Brunswick education system. Mr.. Willms is the only "expert" supporting the Lamrock plan which includes more testing and his institute will be paid to do this testing. Does anyone else see a conflict of interest here?

2. Results of the pre-kindergarten assessments were to be available within two weeks, but 16 weeks later I am still waiting for my daughter's results. This leads me to believe that this program may have been implemented too hastily. Given the number of changes Mr.. Lamrock has introduced, I am concerned that some of these may also be implemented hastily. Introducing so many changes at one time certainly increases the likelihood that problems will occur.

I wonder what the 2008-2009 school year will be like for our kids. The word "chaotic" comes to mind!

Jacqueline Jacob-Vogels,

Sackville

(Via e-mail)

Not chicken, perhaps ostrich

To The Editor:

Too often readers of this newspaper have all been unnecessarily exposed to this ridiculous spat between supporters of evolution and supporters of creationism.

While totally disgusted on many occasions, I have refrained from contributing until now. However, I feel that at one point, as a scientist, I cannot let unsubstantiated hearsay based on belief go unchecked, especially when it attacks scientific established proof.

Arguments between proof and belief are nonsensical. It is almost like one person saying today is Dec. 25 and the other saying no, today is Christmas.

We all know it may be Christmas to some but not others yet to the best of our knowledge, it is Dec. 25 for everyone.

In the latest chapter, Mr.. Wilbur, attempts to cast doubt on the scientific evidence that dinosaurs are the distant ancestors to birds. I am by no means an expert in archeology but I do know a thing or two about genes and genetics. This scientific discovery is not new. It has been known for many years that due to many similarities in anatomy, physiology and now molecular biology that some species of dinosaurs bear undeniable similarities to birds. It is also well known that some dinosaurs had wings and presumably could fly, unlike chickens who apparently have lost this ability (Mr. Wilbur, did chickens lose this ability by design or evolution?).

Is it so hard to believe that some species that lived millions of years ago (again scientifically proven) could have survived one or several catastrophic events that wiped out most species and continued to evolve into present day birds?

Even my seven year old daughter knows all about this. We all know by simply observing animals around us that some are more similar than others. What this research has shown is that dinosaurs are genetically more similar to birds than say . . . dogs. Without going into details, this can be proven by gene analysis and sequencing. It is the same method that is used to prove that someone is your biological father. It should come as no surprise to anyone that our judicial system considers this information to be proof of paternity.

Unfortunately, we still have no test that can prove that what Mr. Wilbur says is correct. Proof is proof whereas belief is belief. The two are not interchangeable.

R. Ouellette, MD, PhD,

Dieppe

Blame was misplaced

To The Editor,

The column May 6 by the current Dieppe Mayor has the appearance of a desperate attempt to hold on to power at any costs. Attacking a newspaper whose role is to inform the public with facts confirms what the Dieppe Coalition of Citizens said all along, that the current council is under the control of a vested interest, thus the veil of secrecy. The whole project has been flawed since its inception. Dieppe voters will not be fooled with such a weak attempt to blame anyone but themselves. But what is of more concern is what we do not know. That is the scary part.

Romeo LeBlanc,

Dieppe