"He'd ask me words that he saw on the signs, on billboards, and he'd ask me to spell them," Snigdha Nandipati said. "I remember my favorite word to spell was 'design' because it had the silent 'g.' "
It didn't take long for Krishnarao Nandipati to realize his daughter had a special talent. He began entering her in bees in the third grade. Soon she was winning them, and Thursday night the 14-year-old girl from San Diego captured the biggest prize of them all: the Scripps National Spelling Bee.
A coin collector and Sherlock Holmes fan, Snigdha aced the word "guetapens," a French-derived word that means an ambush or a trap, to outlast eight other finalists and claim the trophy along with more than $40,000 in cash and prizes.
"I knew it. I'd seen it before," Snigdha, a semifinalist last year, said of the winning word. "I just wanted to ask everything I could before I started spelling."
There was no jumping for joy, at least not right away. The announcer didn't proclaim Snigdha the champion, so she stood awkwardly near the microphone for a few seconds before confetti started to fly. One person who knew for certain she had won was her 10-year-old brother, Sujan, who ran full-speed onto the stage and enveloped his sister in a hug.
In that respect, it was a familiar bee sight -- a Indian-American family celebrating
and soaking up the ovation in the 85th edition of the annual contest held in the Washington area. Americans of Indian descent have won the bee five times in a row and in 10 of the last 14 years, a phenomenon that began in 1999 with champion Nupur Lala, who was later featured in the documentary "Spellbound."Snigdha, like many winners before her, cited Lala as an inspiration. And, like several other recent Indian-American champions, she wants to be a doctor -- either a psychiatrist or a neurosurgeon.
"She says this is harder than being a neurosurgeon -- maybe," her mother, Madhavi, said.
Snigdha's grandparents traveled from Hyderabad in southeastern India for the competition, but it was the little brother who stole the show as he played with the confetti and then helped his sister hoist the huge trophy. Might he be a future champion?
"He's not that interested," the father said. "He's more into tennis."
Second place went to Stuti Mishra of West Melbourne, Fla., who misspelled "schwarmerei" -- which means excessive, unbridled enthusiasm. While many spellers pretend to write words with their fingers, 14-year-old Stuti had an unusual routine -- she mimed typing them on a keyboard.
The week began with 278 spellers, including the youngest in the history of the competition -- 6-year-old Lori Anne Madison of Lake Ridge, Va. The field was cut to 50 semifinalists after a computer test and two preliminary rounds, and Lori Anne was two misspelled words away from a semifinal berth. The tiny, blue-eyed prodigy said she'd be back next year.
Gifton Wright of Spanish Town, Jamaica, was hoping to be the first winner from outside the United States since 1998, but he could not correctly spell "ericeticolous." Twelve-year-old Arvind Mahankali of New York aspired to be the first non-teen to win since 2000, but he couldn't spell "schwannoma" and finished third for the second straight year.
"I got eliminated both times by German words," said Arvind, who has one year of eligibility remaining. "I know what I have to study."
Source: www.thereporter.com
California awards tax credits to 28 pics - Variety
© Copyright 2011 
Source: www.variety.com
California lawmakers expand workplace religious protections - Columbia Daily Tribune
Advertisement
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly has approved a bill that would add more protections for religious freedom in the workplace, specifying that California discrimination laws also should apply to religious clothing, hairstyles and the right to carry religious objects.
The bill's author, Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, D-Davis, said she was upset to learn that Sikh and Muslim workers continue to face discrimination at work despite laws prohibiting it. The bill, which passed Tuesday on a 59-3 vote, also clarifies that segregating an employee from other workers or the public because of his or her appearance is not an acceptable accommodation under the law.
"This bill is a little bit like the Rosa Parks issue of the 21st century for me," Yamada said. "To know that there are Sikhs and Muslims relegated to the back of the store in order to continue their employment is particularly heinous."
Some lawmakers noted that the law could save the state from costly legal cases, such as a lawsuit the Department of Corrections settled last year with a Sikh man who was barred from becoming a prison guard because he refused to shave the beard required by his Sikh religion so he could be fitted for a gas mask. The state agreed to pay the man $295,000 in damages and give him a managerial job.
Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, said she was concerned the changes could endanger employees and their co-workers, such as if oilfield workers were unable to effectively don respirators.
The legislation now moves to the state Senate.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source: www.columbiatribune.com
California Public Records Act request proves board in violation of Brown Act - Examiner
On March 27, 2012, animal activists converged on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to support creation of an animal services oversight commission. The commission is being proposed by Third District Supervisor Neil Derry and seemingly opposed by Chairwoman Josie Gonzales.
Gonzales used her “chairwoman’s discretion” to move the item to the very end of the calendar. Activists had to sit through a few public hearings before they were allowed to speak to what was a consent item. This situation, however, proved to be enlightening.
Several controversial items were on the discussion calendar, which included comments made by members of the public. At no time was any member of the public asked for his or her home address.
Most meetings held in California by local boards and councils are covered by a section of the California Government Code known as the Brown Act. Specifically, Section 54953.3 states:
A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a legislative body of a local agency, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.
If an attendance list, register, questionnaire, or other similar document is posted at or near the entrance to the room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated to the persons present during the meeting, it shall state clearly that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary, and that all persons may attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or completes the document.
Despite this act having been in effect since 1953, it is conceivable San Bernardino County Council has yet to read it as has been the case, and documented extensively, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, even if legal council is not familiar with it, members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors should be since part of their supervisors' orientation includes what they can and cannot do at a public meeting.
When it was time for the animal oversight committee board item to be heard, Gonzales told speakers that they must state their name and home address for the record. She went so far as to halt the meeting after one speaker did not give her home address and force her to return from the audience where she was already seated to the podium to state her home address for the record.
It was clear to everyone that Gonzales was attempting to harass the activists in attendance. Some have since been subjected to retaliation by animal control officers.
On May 22, a public records request was submitted to the San Bernardino County Administrative Office pursuant to the California Public Records Act that read:
Can you provide me with the statute or case law that allows the BOS to require a member of the public who wishes to address the BOS during public comment to provide his home address before being allowed to speak? Thank you.
Several hours later, David Wert, public information officer for the county sent this response:
Hi Sharon, No one can be required to give their home address as a condition of being allowed to speak at a board meeting. David
This is a clear admission that the county knew it was in violation of the Brown Act when Gonzales chose to harass speakers. Later that same morning, several activists appeared before the board again to address concerns about county animal services. This time Gonzales did not mention to the speakers that they needed to provide their home addresses. She had been caught.
Source: www.examiner.com
No comments:
Post a Comment