To the editor:
I wonder how many people realize our nurses are picked by lottery. Grades and work experience have no influence in who gets into the RN program.
In other words, if someone decides they want to be a nurse just for the money, they may get in. A dedicated certified nurse’s assistant working in the field already and in it out of concern for patients may have to reapply several times, hoping his or her name gets picked.
The hospital has to hire traveling nurses because there is a shortage, yet we have students waiting to start training and cannot. Instead, students from out of the area get picked, train, then go home to their hospitals to work.
Since Sonora Regional contributes substantially to the RN program, it seems it should have more influence on local students being trained. Makes me wonder if the college and hospital are working together in this program. Is it any wonder we have a shortage of nurses?
To the editor:
As one of the proponents of the Big Oak Flat-Groveland School District recall, I would like to apologize to the people of our district for asking you to support two people of whom I suspected early on during the recall process of not being suitable candidates — Mike Malloy and Gloria Marler.
Both of these people are doing more to hurt our district than healing, and I feel partially responsible for their getting elected.
Mrs. Marler is bogging down our board meetings with silly changes and “word games,” while Mr. Malloy is acting the wronged party and continuing with his bullying attitude.
We need to spend our money and efforts on improving our schools, not on lawyers and the $125-an-hour or so it costs us to have Mr. King and his secretary at board meetings.
So much of our meetings are spent on things that could easily be settled beforehand. We need to save our money for the kids. Remember the kids?
I would ask you, the public, to ask Mr. Malloy to do the honorable thing and resign and Mrs. Marler to either do what she promised and help make our schools better and safer places or resign herself. Neither of them seems to think they are in the wrong and only the voices of the public — we who voted them in May — have some chance of making them understand.
I hate to say it, but two of the people who made the most sense at the last meeting were people we voted out.
Marian L. Wolf
To the editor:
Recently, John Buckley and others tried to discredit TuCARE because our Natural Resource Summit keynote speaker, Myron Ebell, criticized some of the science behind the global warming debate. Mr. Ebell did call some of the science “junk.” This term refers to inaccurate science that has been politicized for an agenda.
Tracking yearly temperature data is relatively easy and hard to refute. Scientists tracking the earth’s temperatures agree that for the past 11 years our earth has been cooling. What is more difficult is modeling the future of our climate based on information from the past. This requires scientists to use the best available data and then adjust their predictions as data changes.
Junk science is different: When new data becomes available that doesn’t support the predictions, the data is changed or distorted. In the climate change debate, this is fairly easy to do, as very few people outside an inner circle are privy to the computer modeling of this data.
Unfortunately for members of this inner circle — namely Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, along with Tom Wigley of the same agency — they been caught manipulating data in what is now called “Climategate.” It appears that plenty of the original data that reinforced Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize winning efforts had been rigged. It’s junk, to echo Myron Ebell.
Two challenges on this from TuCARE: To The Union Democrat, to aggressively report on this huge development in the climate change debate. And to our critics, next time come to the summit — you won’t be attacked and may be surprised at what you learn.