FOR POLITICIANS with major bad news to release or to make public, there's no time like the dead of August to do it. The thinking goes that the public won't remember a thing come September. We hope Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) will have no such luck. His belated revelation of previously unreported income, property and bank accounts demands that he step aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Rangel's amended financial disclosure form, which exposes omissions from his 2002 through 2006 records, is a treasure trove of outrage. He neglected to report a checking account with the Congressional Federal Credit Union and one with Merrill Lynch, each valued between $250,000 and $500,000; the tens of thousands of dollars he's earning from dividends from a number of mutual funds and stocks; and the money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse. As a result, Mr. Rangel's reported net worth doubled, from between $516,015 and $1,316,000 to between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000.
We called on Mr. Rangel to resign his coveted post last November while the House ethics committee probed his contact with a potential donor to a pet project who also had business before the committee. Mind you, that committee already was looking into his using official stationery to raise funds for that pet project, paying below-market rents on four Harlem apartments, failing to report income from a Florida condominium sale and failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic. There's another subcommittee investigation into lobbyist-paid trips by Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress.
Much is expected of elected officials. Much more is expected and demanded of those entrusted with chairmanships and the power that comes with them, especially when it involves the nation's purse strings. From all that we've seen thus far, Mr. Rangel has violated that trust continually and seemingly without care.
Taxidermist To Stuff Fanged, Leathery Beast This is big national news, even on YAHOO today, folks!
A man living north of San Antonio says he has quite the animal sitting in his freezer -- and it may be a mythical chupacabra. Jerry Ayer, a teacher at the Blanco Taxidermy School in Blanco, Texas, told TV station KSAT that he's never seen anything like it. "Different, that's for sure, very interesting," said Ayer.
The find comes amid a number of strange sightings in the area. The animal is gray in color with leathery, hairless skin and large fangs. "The front legs seem to be a little bit longer than a typical coyote, very irregular and never seen any that have legs like that," said Ayer. Similar animals have been spotted across the country and deep in South America. "I don't know what to call it, I'll just call it a chupacabra too," Ayer told KSAT.
He said he came across the animal because a former student of his didn't know what it was either and sought advice. "It got into his cousin's barn and they thought maybe it was a rodent tearing things up, and they had no idea since they've never seen it," said Ayer. "He got out some poison, and this is what they got the very next day."
Ayer said he plans to preserve the animal with taxidermy. He also said he hopes a local museum will take it for display so everyone can marvel at the strange animal. "It's definitely something I don't want to throw away," said Ayer. "I think it will be an interesting mount and a tremendous conversation piece."
The chupacabra myth began not long ago in the 1990s when eyewitnesses claimed to have seen it in Puerto Rico. Farmers there said sheep were found with puncture wounds and were drained of blood. A total of 150 farm animals were reportedly killed by the beast. Since then, sightings have been reported from Chile to Maine. The mythical beast also found its way into popular culture and television. CNN's Ed Lavandera called the chupacabra the "bigfoot of Latino culture." The animal gets its name from Spanish, chupacabra literally means "goat sucker."
Finds like the one in Blanco have appeared on the History Channel's "Monster Quest," they were subsequently determined to be dogs or coyotes.
On Oct. 7, 2001, the United States launched one of the most stunningly successful military operations in its history. Just four weeks after terrorists directed from Afghanistan killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil, we struck al-Qaida and Taliban government targets with aircraft, missiles and Special Forces soldiers. By early December, the Taliban was out of power, al-Qaida had fled into the mountains and victory was ours.
But that was eight years ago. Did anyone expect back then that we would still be in Afghanistan today, with more troops than ever? The war we thought we had won is not only dragging on but getting worse.
Already, 2009 has been the deadliest year of the war for American forces, and August was the deadliest month yet. Concludes Anthony Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, "The U.S. is now losing the war against the Taliban."
Beyond toppling the Taliban regime, it's hard to see what we have accomplished. Despite the presence of more than 100,000 Western troops and foreign assistance totaling $32 billion since 2001, The Economist magazine says nearly two-thirds of the country "is considered too dangerous for aid agencies to reach."
In much of the country, the central government that we have done so much to bolster is about as relevant as the Confederate Air Force. When RAND Corp. scholar Seth Jones traveled in the country last year, he found "some villagers had never heard of President Hamid Karzai, who has led the country since 2001."
This week, U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal submitted a report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserting that "success is achievable" with "a revised implementation strategy." He is expected to request even more troops -- even though the number of American military personnel has doubled in the past year, to more than 60,000.
How many more troops? The Washington Post reports that a senior military officer said recently that the U.S. would need a force of 100,000 to carry out a new strategy. That may not be easy to get from the Obama administration, since a majority of Americans now oppose a war that once had near-universal support.
Nor is 100,000 troops necessarily enough. The surge strategy in Iraq required 160,000 U.S. military personnel -- in a country with fewer people and a third less land area than Afghanistan.
By now it's clear that eliminating the Taliban, creating a stable central government and putting the country on the road to economic development is a project that will take many years, if it can be done at all. A report from the Washington-based Center for American Progress calling for a renewed U.S. commitment says withdrawal might be possible -- a decade from now. So President Obama will have to decide if he plans to find a way to escape this bottomless bog or leave the decision to whoever is president in 2019.
The U.S. has remained in Afghanistan this long on the assumption that it was a war we had to win: Pull out and we would soon be back where we were on Sept. 10, 2001, with the Taliban in control and al-Qaida enjoying a refuge from which to launch attacks. But our safety does not require us to stay there to engage in the costly and open-ended projects known as nation-building, or even to defeat the extremists.
Before the attacks on New York and Washington, the U.S.
government was averse to going after our enemies in Afghanistan. But no jihadist in the most remote reaches of Helmand province could possibly expect a repetition of that forbearance. Even if the Taliban were to regain power, they and al-Qaida would know that any attempt to strike American targets would assure another cataclysmic response.
Today's "safe haven" for terrorists actually lies in Pakistan, which the U.S. has not seen the need to invade. The threat to Pakistan from Islamic extremists is commonly offered as another rationale for our presence in Afghanistan. But as the war has continued, Pakistan has grown less stable and more vulnerable, suggesting that our efforts are either ineffectual or counterproductive.
The same could be said of our entire mission. The Soviets went into Afghanistan in 1979 in the mistaken belief that the invasion would enhance their security. Nine years later, they admitted failure and went home. Staying longer than they did doesn't mean we will be more successful.
#1
I received orders to move against Colonel Thomas Harris, who was said to be encamped at the town of Florida, some twenty-five miles south of were we then were Harris had been encamped in a creek bottom for the sake of being near water. The hills on either side of the creek extended to a considerable height, possibly more than a hundred feet. As we approached the brow of the hill from which was expected we could see Harris camp, and possibly find his men ready formed to meet us, my heart kept getting higher and higher until it felt to me as though it was in my throat. I would have given anything then to have been back in Illinois, but I had not the moral courage to halt and consider what to do; I kept right on. When we reached a point from which the valley below was in full view I halted. The place where Harris had been encamped a few days before was still there and the marks of recent encampment were plainly visible, but the troops were gone. My heart resumed its place. It occurred to me at once that Harris had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him. This was a view of the question I had never taken before; but it was one I never forgot afterwards. From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting an enemy, though I always felt more or less anxiety. I never forgot that he had as much reason to fear my forces as I had his. I never forgot that lesson. Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant
I'm sure the view from the other side is that everything is going like clockwork. /sarc off
It is said that during the holy month of Ramadan, the devils are imprisoned in hell. However, on a gentle Ramadan night, a mutinous Al Qaeda devil managed to free himself from his shackles and evade pursuit, then cloak himself in explosives and attempt to assassinate the security figure who had dealt a painful blow to Al Qaeda and its terrorist network, Assistant Interior Minister for Security Affairs, Prince Mohammed Bin Naif.
By any description, this was not just a cowardly crime, but a stupid one, as it does not serve the interests of Al Qaeda and its followers. This kind of assassination attempt will reduce the size of the support and sympathy enjoyed by Al Qaeda and its followers, and it is this support and sympathy that enables the Al Qaeda epidemic to spread and infect society at large.
In the past, Al Qaeda's strategy was subtle and confusing, and its operations on Saudi soil was limited to targeting American interests, from targeting residential compounds, companies, individuals, and utilities. At the time, some believed these attacks to be part of a series of retaliatory battles taking place between the US and Al Qaeda in a number of countries across the world, with Saudi Arabia representing just one of these battlefronts.
Al Qaeda were able to obtain sympathy from different social classes, some of whom did not necessarily agree with its ideology due to the fact that the Arab and Muslim general public was already angry at US policy during George W. Bush's administration. However Al Qaeda committed its greatest mistake by targeting a security centre in central Riyadh, this was followed by the fatal mistake of the failed attempt to bomb the headquarters of the Interior Ministry; these attacks decreased the sympathy and support given to this rogue group even further. Seen in this context, the recent assassination attempt on Prince Mohammed Bin Naif is just one of a series of insane and stupid blunders made by Al Qaeda, the consequences of which are yet to be known.
In order to understand these catastrophic blunders, we must look at those who have been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia in security cases, from Al Qaeda recruits, to those who were affected by its ideology to one degree or another, and even those who were imprisoned for committing terrorist related crimes but who in fact were not believers. Everybody is aware that Prince Mohammed Bin Naif is in charge of these detainees, and some analysts believe that one of the reasons behind this assassination attempt was retaliation for their incarceration. If this is the case, Prince Mohammed Bin Naif will be even more committed to their incarceration. This also weakens the case of the Saudi Human Rights Organizations, who have done everything in their power to expedite the trials of the security detainees or secure their release, from opening dialogue with, and writing to, the Ministry of Interior. Now let those who plotted this insane assassination attempt imagine the miserable fate they have subjected their detained comrades to.
Following this idiotic and heinous crime, Al Qaeda must realize that the man who is in charge of its prisoners fates, and who normally is the one to receive reports and eye-witness accounts on these terrorist criminals, has this time become the victim and eye-witness himself. According to the Arab proverb "he who saw is unlike he who heard" these terrorists will no longer enjoy support or sympathy in their restless endeavors; this is because the Saudi public has now spontaneously and remarkably given this support and sympathy towards Prince Mohammed Bin Naif.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Arabia
#1
If Russia and China invade North Korea, South Korea will probably jump in. The question here is whether Uncle Sam jumps in on South Korea's side. We do have a mutual defense treaty with South Korea, but as far as I can tell, anything north of the DMZ isn't South Korea. At the same time, the idea of China and Russia divvying up North Korea positively reeks.
#2
I dunno how bad it reeks, but wouldn't it turn into a race to set borders? Surely the DPRK would attack the South in some way, prompting a counterstrike, which we'd certainly aid as another "peacekeeping" initiative.
Still, you'd think the Russians would learn, eventually, about trying to pacify hostile non-slav neighbors. They have a spotty track record on that score.
#3
It would be fun to watch the Russians and Chinese occupy North Korea. I imagine it would be an unpleasant task. They are tough fellows over there and if someone, anyone, armed them (say Taiwan or even Israel trying to counter Russian arming of their enemies) it could get really nasty.
#4
I would suspect Russia and China would either (a) invade and put a trustworthy North Korean in charge so they could leave quickly or (b) Invade, crush the North Korea military and allow South Korea to take over occupation/absorbing. South Korea could then be moved into the Neutral column and any US forces removed allowing for more leeway when pressuring Japan or Taiwan. (c) or a combination of the two in which a Chinese/Russian puppet takes over North Korea with the intent to join the South in a decade or so once North Korea is viable and if South Korea plays ball.
#7
.5MT, I dunno, they're the main supporters of Bizarro World now.
Y'know, I'll bet if the Germans conquered the place and had swastika-armbanded guards feeding people into crematoria alive, the world would be upset.
But Russia and China get a local proxy together who talks about how he's gonna do such a wonderful goddamn job of both feeding the country and fighting off the fascist Americans, while the country starves to death at about the same rate as the Nazis would achieve killing untermenschen, and everyone else talks about "eh, it's bizarro world, who cares?"
Before leaving for his vacation on Martha's Vineyard, Barack Obama said the next big item on his legislative agenda -- well, after health care, cap and trade, and maybe labor's bill to effectively abolish secret ballots in union elections -- was immigration reform. What he has in mind, apparently, is something like the comprehensive immigration bills that foundered in the House in 2006 and in the Senate in 2007. These featured guest-worker and enforcement provisions, as well as a path to legalization.
But there's another reason why Congress and the administration would be unwise to revive the 2006-07 legislation. The facts on the ground have changed. The surge of illegal immigrants into the United States, which seemed to be unrelenting for most of the last two decades, seems to be over, at least temporarily, and there's a chance it may never resume.
The Pew Hispanic Center reported in July that the flow of immigrants from Mexico -- by far the leading source of illegals -- has declined sharply since mid-decade, and that from spring 2008 to spring 2009 only 175,000 Mexicans entered the United States, only about one-quarter as many in 2004-05. The number of Mexican natives in the United States has declined slightly this year. But, Pew concludes, there is no evidence of an increase in the total returning to Mexico.
The Center for Immigration Studies had a different interpretation in its July report. It tried to distinguish legal and illegal immigrants, and found no decline in legal immigrants. But it estimated that the number of illegals in the United States dropped from 12.5 million in summer 2007 to 10.8 million in spring 2008 -- a decline of 14 percent. It found that the illegal population declined after July 2007 when the immigration bill died in the Senate and then fell off more sharply with the financial crisis in fall 2008. It estimated that 1.2 million illegals returned to Mexico between 2006 and 2009, more than twice as many as in the 2002-05 period.
From this evidence I draw two conclusions. First, stricter enforcement -- the border fence, more Border Patrol agents, more stringent employer verification, state and local laws -- has reduced the number of illegal immigrants. Second, the recession has reduced the number of both legal and illegal immigrants. And the reservoir of potential immigrants may be drying up. Birthrates declined significantly in Mexico and Latin America circa 1990. And as immigration scholars Timothy Hatton and Jeffrey Williamson write, emigration rates from Mexico and Latin America -- the percentage of population leaving those countries -- peaked way back in 1985-94.
Moreover, people immigrate not only to make money but to achieve dreams. And one of those dreams has been shattered for many Hispanic immigrants. Most housing foreclosures have occurred in four states -- California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida -- and about one-third of those who have lost their homes are Hispanic. Immigration is stimulated by the reports of success that immigrants send back home. It may be discouraged by reports of failure.
WSJ Opinion-We can still win a counterinsurgency, but not on the cheap.
Opposition to the war is rising, even in the President's own party and even before his new military strategy has been fully implemented. Our ally's leaders look weak and corrupt, Americans are increasingly opposed to the war, and prominent politicians and columnists are saying it is time to leave and redeploy our forces to focus on the real danger to the U.S., which is from al Qaeda.
Sound familiar? That was roughly the state of play regarding Iraq in September 2007, even as General David Petraeus's troop surge and counterinsurgency strategy were beginning to work in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. Despite a few shaky moments, President Bush stuck with it, and a looming U.S. defeat became a victory.
We are now approaching a similar pass in Afghanistan, amid rising doubts about the wisdom of continuing that war nearly eight years after 9/11. Read the rest of the article for a good summary of the present situation. Last two paragraphs follow.
In any case, the fight in Afghanistan is not about nation building or turning a tribal state into Westminster. The goal is to provide enough stability and Afghan support to prevent the country from once again becoming a sanctuary for terrorists who could attack the U.S. In short, this is a fight in our strategic interests. Leaving Afghanistan in its current state would be a defeat in the larger war on terror, which would encourage jihadists everywhere. Yes, there is still a War On Terror.
President Obama may not want to spend any political capital on Afghanistan, but he has no choice. The main job of his generals should be to win the war, not also to have to sell it, especially when the main opposition so far is emerging from the President's own left-flank. The opposition will also grow on the right if Americans conclude he isn't providing the forces or personal leadership needed to win. Now is the time for Mr. Obama to give his generals everything they need to defeat the Taliban, or leave and explain why he's concluded that Afghanistan is no longer worth the fight.
#1
If Karzai loses the presidental election, as well he might. The Pashtun will feel even more alienated and things will get worse.
The Pushtun are a tribal society with blood feuds the go on for generations. Very different from the mostly urbanized Sunnis in Iraq. In Iraq you were fighting a few hundred to a few thousands militants. In Afghanistan you are fighting 40 million Pushtun.
Otherwise, a surge in Afghanistan is typical of the Left. Copy something they don't understand, then blame someone else when it doesn't work.
I'm testing a comparison with the Daleks here to see if it works.
Three recent editorials in Iran's major conservative dailies Kayhan and Jomhouri-e Eslami gave a detailed account of Iran's position vis-ￜ-vis the U.S. peace plan. It was claimed that the U.S. and Israel are trying to force on the Palestinians a plan that safeguards their own interests and perpetuates Palestinian inferiority, by activating the U.S.'s and Israel's proxies in the region - that is, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and other Arabs from the "conciliation camp." Jomhouri-e Eslami called on the Palestinians to reinforce their resistance front and to reject anything less than Israel's annihilation, calling it "a goal within reach." Kayhan purported that "the Arabs who are in favor of conciliation," whom it dubbed "hypocrites within the [Islamic] nation," "are collaborating in the implementation of the Zionist-American version of peace by giving a green light to the Americans." It added that "peace - whether according to the Arab or the American formula - is tantamount to recognizing the brutal and artificial Zionist regime," and said that "unless this regime is completely eradicated from the region's political map, no Middle East peace is possible." [1] "EX-TER-MIN-ATE! AN-NI-HI-LATE! DES-TROY!"
In another editorial, Kayhan called on the Muslim countries not to participate in the talks with the U.S. and the Zionists, which the U.S. has set for September 2009, concomitantly with the U.N. General Assembly, in order to discuss the U.S. comprehensive peace initiative in the Middle East. The paper reiterated that "a solution [in the Middle East] can be achieved only by completely annihilating the Zionist regime, which is the source of all insecurity in the region," "THEY MUST BE EX-TER-MIN-AT-ED! EX-TER-MIN-AT-ED!"
and that "the establishment of two states, Palestinian and Zionist, would be the same as totally crushing the rights of the Palestinian people, rather than securing these rights for them." It was also stated that "the conflict [between the U.S. and Israel] is not genuine, but merely a fraud aimed at deceiving the Arabs from the conciliation [camp]." [2]
Following are excerpts from the Jomhouri-e Eslami editorial:
"Peace - Whether According to the Arab or the American Formula - Is Tantamount to Recognizing the Brutal and Artificial Zionist Regime" "ARE YOU REA-DY FOR WAR?"
"Official Palestinian recognition of the Zionist regime by the Palestinians is Israel's most cherished dream. It would deal a death blow to aspirations for a Palestinian state, grant everlasting legitimacy to the Zionist regime, and lay the ground for the attainment of its expansionist goals in the Middle East.
"The Zionists came close to fulfilling these aspirations when Yasser Arafat consented, by means of a disgraceful agreement [i.e. the Oslo accords], to eliminate [the article on] combating the Zionists from the Palestinian charter. But the Palestinian nation was not prepared to acquiesce in this disgrace; following the example of the Islamic Revolution, which has never stopped fighting the Zionist regime, it turned to Islam [for a solution]. "DO NOT BLAS-PHEME! DO NOT BLAS-0PHEME!"
"Yasser Arafat fell captive to the dirty games of the Zionists, the Americans, and the Europeans. He died having lost his hold over the Palestinian people and stripped of all his past triumphs as a fighter. I'm snipping the rest of the spittle.
President Obama's planned address to America's schoolchildren on Sept. 8 is generating a firestorm of controversy from concerned parents who think he should mind his own business and stay away from their children. It's easy to see why.
According to an Aug. 26 letter from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to school principals, the president wants to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning." He also will call for "shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible." I wonder if they have the syllabus printed up yet? Can we get it on-line?
If the speech was simply limited to this kind of feel-good rhetoric, it would be harmless enough. But there is more to this noontime event than simply interrupting lunch. The Obama administration has recommended a series of activities before, during and after the speech intended to drill home the president's messages. Given that the teachers' unions are some of Mr. Obama's most ardent supporters, we expect that the supporting activities will have the feel of pro-Obama pep rallies.
In a move suggestive of the Pyongyang public school system, the U.S. Department of Education recommended that before the speech students collectively brainstorm questions like, "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us?" Is this activity for the second-graders or the sophomores?
Classrooms are to be festooned with "notable quotes excerpted (and posted in large print on board) from President Obama's speeches about education," presumably alongside benevolent-looking images of the dear leader.
One of our favorite notable quotes was from a Sept. 9, 2008, speech in which Mr. Obama said that his administration would reform education "without mortgaging our children's future on an even larger amount of debt." This is a particularly salient passage in light of the fact this president is recklessly running up the national debt to unsustainable heights that our children (and their children and grandchildren) will have to pay for the rest of their lives. Class, talk among yourselves. Better yet, class, write your Congressman and the President about mortgaging your future. Go to Congress.Org, class.
During the speech, students are to engage in a busy-work nightmare, writing down key concepts from the speech, trying to capture direct quotations, and afterward matching them up to key words "to increase retention and deepen their understanding of an important aspect of the speech." I like that idea, but I think I might get a different understanding than intended.
This is troubling in light of Mr. Obama's history of radical activism in schools. This week, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center revealed details of Mr. Obama's tenure as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in the 1990s, where he forged a close partnership with self-described small "c" communist Bill Ayers. Under Mr. Obama's leadership, the group funneled $100 million to left-wing activists to promote a radical political agenda under the guise of education reform. Just like the healthcare bill...
Radicals always have viewed children as wards of the state to be shaped into shock troops to advance their revolutionary agendas. It is an idea of ancient provenance. Plato said that "children must attend school, whether their parents like it or not; for they belong to the state more than to their parents." Every radical leader of the 20th century put indoctrinating children at the top of his agenda. So when someone with Mr. Obama's background reaches directly into every school in America, parents are rightly concerned.
The planned speech reinforces the lurking creepiness factor around the cult of personality being erected for this president. The White House is billing the speech as "historic," and perhaps they even believe it. But there is no reason for this federal intrusion into family and community affairs. It's not the president's job to be a surrogate parent, teacher or principal for America's children. He would better serve our kids by not bankrupting the country they will inherit.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/03/2009 06:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I wonder if they have the syllabus printed up yet? Can we get it on-line?"
Page down to the PDF's for (pre K-6) and (7-12) indocrination materials. They have, however, apparently been scrubbed to delete the "How can I help President Obama." exercise.
1930 Germany anyone?
In his defense, however, The Statist Mighty O has done something I thought would be impossible. He has made Joe Biden appear almost executive-like!
#3
I can only hope that more school districts will take the same road as one of the "better" school districts around Austin -- They will not show the speech live, but will make it available at a later time, online, so parents and children can watch it together.
Most disturbing is that the Sec of Ed went right to the principals, bypassing the local school board -- not a good move at all.
#10
Yeah, it happens all the time. I vividly remember Ronnie (Reader Rabbit) Raygun's weekly deskside chats urging the elementary schoolers "How can I help President Raygun pass Star Wars" or recess would be cancelled FOREVER muhaha!
Posted by: ed ||
09/03/2009 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Tomorrow Belongs To Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNMVMNmrqJE
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/03/2009 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Gonna be a lot of swine flu stay at home precautions next tuesday.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/03/2009 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I just went to the Anchorage School District website and found THIS. Evidently, the show is on.
Superintendents in the United States were notified by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan last week that President Obama would be addressing all students in the country regarding the value of education. Secretary Duncan encourages educators to use this historic moment to help students get focused and begin the school year strong.
The President's national address to students will be on Tuesday, September 8 at 8 a.m. Alaska time and will be broadcast live on C-Span and streamed live on the White House Web site www.whitehouse.gov. Anchorage School District teachers may choose to watch this address with their students, either live or through rebroadcasts that will be made available later in the day. Participation is voluntary.
We have received a number of phone calls and e-mails from citizens and parents regarding this matter. There appears to be a presumption that this is a political activity; it is not. As I understand it, the President will be stressing the importance of setting goals, the importance of regular school attendance, and the shared responsibility of students, teachers and parents in education. I believe it is very important that our students hear from the President on the important part education played in his life, and that of his family. More information on the address is available on the White House Web site.
I want to assure anyone who is questioning the activity that I believe our students will benefit from listening to the President, if this is something that their teacher chooses to incorporate into their lessons. I would say the same for any other President, and for any other elected official such as our governor, members of Congress, legislators and the mayor. We encourage elected officials to visit our classrooms and to speak to our students; Governor Parnell has already visited East High School, his alma mater, and will be visiting three other schools this month as he stresses the importance of staying in school, not dropping out, and the value of education and a high school diploma.
We have firm guidelines in place for any elected officials and candidates who choose to visit our classrooms and schools.
Parents may opt their student out of this presidential address. If a teacher chooses to watch the address with his or her class, the school will provide an alternate educational activity for those students whose parents do not wish them to participate.
If anyone would like to discuss this issue further, please call my office at 907-742-4312 or send an e-mail to comeau_carol@asdk12.org.
Most sincerely,
Superintendent Carol Comeau
I will write a note to school to have my son opt out of this activity. We will teach him about setting goals and take responsibility for learning, which M'Lady and I already do.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/03/2009 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
FOR POLITICIANS with major bad news to release or to make public, there's no time like the dead of August to do it. The thinking goes that the public won't remember a thing come September. We hope Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) will have no such luck. His belated revelation of previously unreported income, property and bank accounts demands that he step aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. 
On Oct. 7, 2001, the United States launched one of the most stunningly successful military operations in its history. Just four weeks after terrorists directed from Afghanistan killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil, we struck al-Qaida and Taliban government targets with aircraft, missiles and Special Forces soldiers. By early December, the Taliban was out of power, al-Qaida had fled into the mountains and victory was ours.
President Obama's planned address to America's schoolchildren on Sept. 8 is generating a firestorm of controversy from concerned parents who think he should mind his own business and stay away from their children. It's easy to see why. 
