Hello, as a father of two public school children, I do not support common core.
I think it is a horrible reform.
The "state of our education system" is dependent on individuals.
I value the work of many, many individuals.
I think teachers should have autonomy and not be mandated to by top down "reforms".
On 5/20/2014 1:37 PM, Nicole Alvarez wrote:
I am currently researching candidates for office and would like to
hear your stance regarding the Common Core Standards and the current
state of our educational system.
1.) I understand why you need to keep existing voting systems, but why do you have no stance on websites? I would like to see an educational website for californians based on the fact that most citizens do not know how the government works, how bills get passed, what they do everyday and actual information on where our tax dollars are going? Will you be recreating and designing a new website?
1) Stance on what exactly? I would do a major redo of the website. I do design for a living for 25 yrs now.
2) Also, your stance on fracking and other environmental issues, are those issues that the secretary of state works on or the attorney general? I apologize for my ignorance but even looking up secretary of state on google only turned up two sites, and I still got no no clear explanation of what the office actually does. All my information is coming from reading all the candidates websites and their positions and agendas. Regarding the above, if you had a website will it state your listed agenda and will we be able to track it to see if you've completed the task?
2) The fracking issue transcends political offices. Do you enjoy drinking water? Fracking licenses should be stopped at the local level. I worked directly on a mediation for the Fukushima disaster, regardless of political office. Please see the tab "platform" on my website: www.votedavidcurtis.org "
3.) If you did have an agenda will it monitor corruption and if so, how would it?
3) The state statutes "monitor" corruption. If an individual breaks a state statute it is up to the legal system at that point.
4.) Will your website for california or your personal blog address californias environmental issues better than the media?
4) It seems difficult to determine what the "media" is capable of addressing.
Respectfully, David Curtis
Update 6/6/2014: theBradblog does not seem to be a legitimate news source,
it seems to be a shill for perhaps the (redacted) industry,
that is one plausible explanation I can come up with for his actions
during this campaign. Brad Friedman accuses me of defamation.
He seems to not understand the definition of defamation.
I can assure you I would be the first to admit defamation if
I saw it. He seems to be an ego driven drama queen, pretending to be a
voice of "truth".
(I am not a professional mental health adviser but that is my best guess)
He is no friend to the Green Party and if he thinks he is,
then he is a deeply disturbed individual and should probably
not have access to such a "large transmitter".
Here's the deal: BF is afraid of online voting.
Not reading me tweet that I too am afraid of online voting,
he (and an enabler name redacted) fabricated that I support it.
I have no position on online voting. Brad Friedman
(and/or his alleged ghost writer) invented a position
implying that I "strongly support" online voting.
He then did an apology story regarding my exclusion from the
Sacramento Press Club forum.
I have said repeatedly that I support multiple modes of voting. The state of CA already supports multiple (more than one) modes of voting. The state of journalism seems to be very weakened by the disruptive influence of the internet. (Some) blog owners (sometimes) post
fabrications masquerading as journalism. The best way to get information about my campaign is to follow me on Twitter at dc_us or one can go to my website
http://www.votedavidcurtis.org my cell phone # is 415 317 4002 Calnewsroom.org did an excellent piece RE: the Sac Press Club exclusion.
David Curtis via email from the Lucas Valley
"You have perhaps heard of the precautionary principle.
Nuclear energy currently violates that principle.
Unless someone determines how to undo the spent fuel and all the adjacent objects/materials/water/whole towns made unusable by nuclear energy, it remains dangerously irresponsible to advocate for nuclear energy.
Please answer that problem first." DC
On 5/3/2014 2:28 PM, Ariana wrote:
Hello Mr. Curtis,
I would like to let you know I am a huge fan of the Green Party as well as your platform for Secretary of State. However, I would like to bring up one point concerning the shut down of nuclear power plants that you are advertising in your mission.
The creation and use of nuclear energy revolutionized the way we look at the future of our planet. Without the damaging effects from fossil fuels, we might be able to prevent or even reverse the damage we have done to our planet. That said, nuclear energy, as any graduate student such as myself will learn in a chemistry program, is over 8,000 times MORE efficient than fossil fuels (ie. uranium vs oil). Making it your mission to shut down nuclear power plants might be the easy way out, but not effective or true to your own party beliefs or goals. Burning fossil fuels expends an enormous amount of waste, but it goes into the air rather than than into a storage facility in the ground. Choosing a better way to produce energy has its own set of obstacles that we should be trying to overcome, not put a stop to.
Thank you for your time. I hope you will take this information into consideration, as it reveals how much your platform not only contradicts your beliefs, but also the beliefs of the Green Party.
Graduate Chemistry Student
California State University, Long Beach