 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought February 13, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Actually, I can’t say that the leader of North Korea has suddenly gone bad. He never was any good to begin with. That was why I had such a difficult time watching Clinton let China help him cut stupid deals with him. The obvious thing has happened, too. They have admitted that they have made nuclear weapons. It was about time he came clean on that one. It reminds me of the time my neighbor's dog told me he had fleas. I knew better than to listen to him. That was what got Son of Sam into trouble. He was listening to his neighbor’s dog who was telling him to do some pretty rotten things. You should never listen to a neighbor’s dog. Only listen to your own dog. He or she (sorry; I shouldn’t have brought gender into this) has a vested interest in your well-being. That isn’t necessarily so with your neighbor's dog. I can’t help but wonder if Clinton’s dog told him to cut those deals, though. I suspect he was aware that he was just window dressing anyway, because most people relate to dog owners better than cat owners. It must have been some twisted revenge of some sort because I was right again. They went right on with their nuke program. It looks like Buddy was setting him up. But here we are once again dealing with another of those "axis of evil" countries, and they are thumbing their nose at us. They are doing the usual, and saying that they did it because of Bush who is going after people with weapons of mass destruction. Well, he didn’t say that; but what came out of North Korea was pretty stupid:
They didn’t mention the bribe Clinton paid them in the way of aid so they wouldn’t do this, but that doesn’t matter anyway. I wonder if they’re going to give back that aid or not? It’s one of those things that just makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Speaking of silly ideas, this is the exact same approach that the French wanted to take with the Iranians. One of the definitions of insane is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. Let’s not go there with Iran. Let’s also not allow the French to broker anything. We’ll be seeing all kinds of new weapons and jets over there if we allow that. North Korea’s military will have to become French speaking in order to deal with the western weapons traffic. Not that they aren’t already. I’m not sure if this relates to this in any way, but the French did build a very nice submarine for the Iranians. But at this point, it’s just another boat under the bridge. Right now I’m much more concerned with which pet Kim is talking to. I’m feeling really warm and fuzzy that Russia and China are taking part in these talks. We know they have our best interest at heart. When I read the comments coming out of that nation, though, such as “a grave situation created due to the U.S. imperialist war hawks’ invariable hostile policy toward the (North)” and “such dangerous military provocations may entail a very serious disaster” or “the single-minded unity serves as the strongest weapon” and “At a time like today, when the situation gets tense, no task is more important than to strengthen our single-minded unity” as they demand the South reunite with the North. And then my favorite: “...devotedly protecting the leader is our life and soul.” I kind of get the feeling that he is talking to his cat or something. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is talking to the Chinese. He says he’s handing the reins of his reign of terror over to his son so he can continue his fine legacy. It sounds a lot like what the Chinese did. I’m giving the government to these people over here, but I’m going to maintain complete control over the military. Kim is just playing a shell game with the reins with us. It is interesting that he realizes that he needs a little window dressing, though. I hear he was pretty upset when he saw "Team America." In actuality, not much has changed in North Korea. However, Bush did let them know he isn’t in the mood to talk to leaders that can’t stick to an agreement. He must be a dog person. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
|
No column this week. |
||||||||||
I have to admit the upcoming Dukes of Hazzard movie has a strong supporting cast. Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville will play the good old boys, Bo and Luke Duke. Willie Nelson will play Uncle Jesse. Burt Reynolds is the surprising—yet promising—choice for Boss Hogg. And, finally, Jessica Simpson will step off the set of her made-for-TV marriage and into some short shorts as the Pride of Hazzard County, Daisy Duke. Granted, most movies based on old shows pack as much punch as Newfound Glory singing Celine Dion—but, so far, this one’s looking pretty good. Everything rests on its real star’s rooftop, though. And, by “real star,” I of course mean the Duke boys’ orange Dodge Charger—the General Lee. Oh, it’ll be there, all right. And no doubt it’ll soar through the air as our folk heroes outrun the law and save the family farm from the land-grabbing Hogg. But that’s a given. The make-or-break question here is this: Will the General Lee sport a Confederate flag on its rooftop? Or will it receive a politically correct, postmodern paint job? Well, based on some of the photos I’ve seen, it appears that the flag is still there. Thank God. The truth is, I was prepared to boycott this movie. Or rebel against it. When I first heard they were bringing Bo and Luke to the big screen, I heard they were planning to leave the flag off—which, to me, defeats everything the characters stand for. In fact, the Dukes of Hazzard aren’t the Dukes of Hazzard without it. They’re just a couple of cousins in a beat-up old car. And where’s the fun in that? Fortunately, though, the Wall Street Journal reports that Warner Bros. will keep the flag after all. While this comes with a caveat (Bo and Luke will acknowledge the flag’s less-than-favorable reputation), I can think of at least three reasons why the studio made the right move. First of all, yes, many people interpret the Confederate flag as a slice of nostalgia for America’s slave-trading past. However, the past is like Vegas; what happens there stays there forever and ever, amen. Today, the flag is more divisive than it was when the Dukes first hit the air. Our sensibility is different. I understand that. But the Confederacy was a thing of the past by the time the show started in 1979. It’s a thing of the past in 2005, too. Just because we’re more sensitive now doesn’t mean Southern secession happened in the last 20 years. So if folks in the North can tell folks in the South, “The war is over,” then I say: Exactly. Get over it. Let ‘em paint the car. Second, believe it or not, there are folks in this world who don’t see the rebel flag as a symbol of racism. It’s true. And they’re easy to spot, these people. Yeah. They’re the ones who wear rebel flags who insist they’re not racists. Why is it everyone questions their motives? For some, this flag is a symbol of Southern heritage. For others, it’s a fashion statement. Not everyone believes the Civil War was waged to “free the slaves.” This doesn’t mean slavery was right. But it doesn’t mean the war was right, either. Look, I’m not saying the flag hasn’t been used as a racist symbol, or that it isn’t embraced by some racists. But not everyone who wears or flies it does so for racist reasons. Where’s the logic in prejudging prejudice? Why assume the worst? Finally, if you’re going to rip the rebel flag off the General Lee, you might as well slap down Old Glory and call it the General Grant instead. This is my main reason for thinking Warner Bros. did the right thing. Taking the flag off the General Lee is like taking Mount Rushmore out of textbooks. It’s like blurring out the gray soldiers in Gods and Generals (or adding colors to any of Ted Turner’s other favorite films). The General Lee is a genuine piece of modern Americana. The Dukes of Hazzard weren’t anti-abolitionists; they were “good old boys, never meanin’ no harm." Their bootlegging, backwoods country lifestyle—their love for dust-ups and fast-drivin’ fun—is the stuff of American legend. Boss Hogg is Big Business, you see. But the bad kind of Big Business. A monopolist. An exploiter of eminent domain. He’s the East India Tea Co. to Sheriff Rosco’s paternalistic King George. Bo and Luke Duke are revolutionaries. They’re freedom fighters. They’re everything we’ve ever been taught to admire about America. The mountain might get ‘em, but the law never will. And as for Daisy—well, she’s just fun to look at. That’s why there needs to be a Confederate flag in this movie. Without it, the General Lee is occupied territory. It suggests the Duke boys are submissive—that before they’ve so much as fought the law, the law has won. And if that’s the case, why see the movie at all? So three cheers to Warner Bros. for making the right decision. Now let’s just hope the picture doesn’t suck. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
There is an old adage which says that a person can save $365.00 a year by simply not playing the Lottery. It’s true that for some folks gambling may pay off big, but for the average person there is no return. It’s just lost money. And for many people, money is better spent on that which they can control. Those who have money to burn can responsibly enjoy the thrill of the gamble because they are not left wanting when they leave the boat. For others, everything they own might be placed on a hope and a prayer. They may end up leaving the boat without any options; left at the mercy of the world around them. In many ways the public school system can be compared to a lottery. A large number of families have little control over where they can live or the school their child will attend. It is through “chance and circumstance” whether the local public school will provide an adequate education. In the event of failure “controlled choice” in public education provides limited alternatives, many of which are dependent upon winning a spot in a school lottery. Alternatives in the public school system include the following: 1. Limited or unlimited ability to transfer to another public school located inside or outside of the home district. 2. Magnet schools 3. Charter schools 4. Contracted schools In statewide open
enrollment plans, students who transfer from one school district to
another take state funds with them. The problem is that schools that
fail to attract students are left with less state money and are less
likely to improve. Some schools will perform better while others will
do worse. Parents who transfer their children outside of their home
school districts may find their influence in the new school diminished
because it’s more difficult to vote for school board members and
to take the time or find transportation to go to meetings and events
located long distances away. Community bonding, inherent in a neighborhood
school, gets lost. Magnet schools provide distinctive curriculum or instruction. By attracting students from outside an assigned neighborhood attendance zone, they are intended to desegregate school systems without forced busing. Appealing magnet programs encourage parents to remain in the public school system and to agreeably mix white and minority students in formerly segregated schools. Magnet schools serve only a small percentage of students. Because there isn’t room for all students, this choice depends on race, income level, and previous school performance. Often there is a "creaming process" where only high achievers with involved parents are chosen. Wealthier sections of the city have more access to magnet schools. Black students must travel further to attend the best magnets. Commuting is often problematic. It can be said that what makes a magnet unique is not the curricula but that there are adequate resources and a safe orderly climate of learning. Though charter schools are publicly funded; reimbursed by the state for each student (equaling the average statewide per-pupil expenditure), they are free of many of the rules and regulations placed on traditional schools. Most charters form in “strong-law states” because there’s no union control, there are multiple charter-granting agencies such as the local school board, state education agency, or university, and the per-pupil funding levels are realistic. Teachers, parents,
or other would-be educators can apply for permission to open a school.
Some states also allow existing public or nonsectarian private schools
to convert to charter status. Under these circumstances, private schools
lose the luxury of choosing those who attend their schools because everyone
must be accepted. Schools must be able to attract students and fulfill their objectives in order to maintain their charters. They are usually expected to achieve certain educational outcomes within three to five years or sponsors will revoke their charter. Charters typically teach underserved youngsters and around 25% of their teachers use either "core knowledge" or “direct-instruction” methodology. Most charters have long waiting lists. Despite the positive ripple effect charters have on their home districts (they can be likened to safety valves used to alleviate overcrowding and potential complaints) spurring the local schools to avail the public of more information; provide more teacher training; offer full-day kindergarten; increase their accountability; and improve academics, there is a lot of resistance from the “Educracy.” Start up charters often times face hostility from local boards, state education agencies, and unions. Courts and legislation are used to derail or restrict charter schools with protracted battles over charter applications, transportation, building leases, students’ records, hiring practices, and funding allocation, often resulting in less money available for art and advanced placement. Some laws require incorporating charters into a school district which compromises their independence. External accountability requirements result in a loss of uniqueness. Because of the public funding, it’s inevitable that charters will face litigation over use of church property, religious leaders on governing boards, or religious education programs. Contract schools are publicly funded but are operated by for-profit E M Os or education-management companies. These companies sign a contract with a public agency that clearly defines the school mission, level of public funding, and accountability standards. An outside contractor, in theory, creates an additional layer of regulation. The reality is that E M Os do not have to competitively bid for contracts and there is a notorious lack of oversight and monitoring of sponsored schools. This in combination with the profit motive of some organizations has in many instances resulted in a lowering of academic standards and teacher qualifications.
Finally, many E M Os specialize in elementary education because it’s less costly to teach this age group. Limited-English or disabled students are high maintenance, yet states usually provide the same subsidy for every student regardless of any need for special services. E M Os that do target minority and disadvantaged students weed out hard-to-teach youngsters and often use scripted, unimaginative teaching and disciplinary techniques. For the majority of plain folk, the money they gamble on funding public education could be better spent on independently run schools which meet the specific needs of their family. The public school system offers few viable alternatives for a failing school. Spending money on public school isn’t a lot different than depositing quarters into the Crane Game at an arcade and trying to grasp one of the low quality stuffed animals available to a select few who actually win. It’s exciting to win, but what did you really get for your money? Trends
and Issues: School Choice Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
"It's hard to overstate how significant this is," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "It's a wonderful blow to inflict on al-Qaida." Wouldn’t it be nice if the administration would focus on the original objective, that is, to bring those criminals to justice? That goal was always valid; but as events of the last eighteen months prove beyond any doubt, the agenda has changed dramatically. Clearly this escapes the Bush administration, but sadly it eludes the American public, as well. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be interrogated offshore for obvious reasons. Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaida's suspected financier, has already under gone intensive questioning. Hardly anyone is concerned about his fate and even less will rally unto KSM. That’s fine! Neither have demonstrated they are our friends. But what is important, is the information that they possess, and in all likelihood, will eventually give up. It’s a tough sell for human rights groups to take up this cause . . . Let’s be honest, most people are more than eager to look the other way on how that information is extracted. The problem is that the same people have little interest if that intelligence might provide the missing links that would turn the focus on areas and people who are off limits from scrutiny. Is the official version of the events that lead up to 911 and the subsequent cover-ups that prevented serious investigation of creditable inquiry, supposed to be accepted? If you listen to both major parties, its an open and shut case - we need to move on - and expand into a “war on all terror”. Why is it so difficult to agree that any and all parties connected with domestic terror are the enemy of the country? If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed starts to provide the evidence of the cooperative relationship between Osama bin Laden and the Carlyle Group, do you think it will be reported to the public or that the government will act upon this information? Since Geo-politics is a very serious game the players don’t usually wear numbers on their jerseys. The relationship of the Bush family and their cronies with the bin Laden family is evident. The mainstream press won’t run with this story and will go to great lengths to discredit all those who raise the issue. So don’t look for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to be doing the Sunday talk programs any time soon. Conversely, don’t be surprised when you start hearing that KSM has just provided the ‘smoking gun’ link that connects Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. “What does he know and when did he know it”, applies to President Bush as well. Who has the courage to ask that question in Congress? When Osama bin Laden’s fate is finally sealed, will the two families hold a reunion? The black sheep won’t interfere with the reconstruction - business will be good. Is this the sum total of the cynical bonds that drive foreign policy? Maybe we should ask Khalid Shaikh Mohammed! Inquiring minds would like to know . . . Ever wonder what was in all those redacted sections, that Saddam Hussein presented in the 12,000 page weapons declaration and disclosure document to the UN? Geneva-based reporter Andreas Zumach said the U.S. broke an agreement of the Security Council and blackmailed Colombia, which at the time was presiding over the Council, to take possession of the UN’s only copy. The U.S. then proceeded to make copies of the report for the other four permanent Security Council nations, Britain, France, Russia and China. Withholding from other countries and protecting the public from viewing unnecessary information is a prime objective. Zumach continues: “We have 24 major U.S. companies listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program . . . The list of U.S. corporations listed in Iraq's report include Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.” Assuredly, the Bush administration would like to protect such companies, from preying eyes. But what about direct links from the Bush clan back to bin Laden? Surely, that isn’t possible, or could it? Follow the money and those blanked out lines might just come alive. BCCI , Arbusto, Harken and bin Mahfouz may not be household name, but they all come full circle, back to Bush. Though Bush told the Wall Street Journal he had "no idea" BCCI was involved in Harken's financial dealings, the network of connections between Bush and BCCI is so extensive that the Journal concluded their investigation of the matter in 1991 by stating: "The number of BCCI-connected people who had dealings with Harken - all since George W. Bush came on board - raises the question of whether they mask an effort to cozy up to a presidential son." While this account may be ancient history for most observers, the question of prevailing interest asks if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed can provide any insights on the direct relationship between the most wanted criminal in the world and the current occupant of the White House? So when we hear all the good news that KSM is in custody, should we determine that another ring leader in crime is captured, or are we wiser to conclude that a potential voice of implication can be silenced? Even the BBC reported that it had been told by a highly placed source in a US intelligence agency there had always been "constraints" on investigating Saudis, but under President George Bush it had become much worse. Why was that the policy pre 911? What secrets were being hidden and how many of them are known by the latest al-Qaida mastermind? Questions, questions and more questions, but where is the doubt that something stinks to high heaven! The al-Qaida network may be unraveling, but the conspiracy still flourishes. Thanks be it that KSM is held in an undisclosed location, what would happen if he ever started talking? Victory has been won, celebrate the King remains untouched. On to the next business partner - Saddam Hussein.
|
||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, February 20, 2005 3:09 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||||
