Christmas True Meaning and TraditionsChristmas has had a long and varied history. It has been celebrated for centuries by different people, at different times, in different places, and in many different ways. Here you will find links to information about the different ways that the holiday we know as Christmas has been celebrated, or not celebrated, over the years.»Watch video about the history and origins of ChristmasAn Ancient HolidaySome of our modern Christmas traditions have much older roots, going back to pagan European traditions.»See how people celebrated the winter solsticeSaturnaliaSaturnalia was a Roman celebration in honor of the god Saturn.»Discover what the Ancient Romans celebrated on December 25thAn Outlaw ChristmasThe Puritans didn't believe in the jovial Christmas holiday, so they banned it.»Find out the penalty for celebrating ChristmasChristmas ReinventedAmericans embraced Christmas in the 19th Century, even inventing some of their own Christmas traditions.»See how Americans created their own vision of ChristmasA Christmas CarolCharles Dickens' classic tale reflected and influenced changing ideas about the nature of Christmas.»Learn how Scrooge and Tiny Tim changed ChristmasEnjoy Christmas with Santa Claus at the North pole, an award-winning Christmas web site. Send a letter to Santa Clause or a Christmas card to a friend.»Santa Claus and Christmas at the NorthpoleThe True Meaning of Christmas
Stephen King Under The Dome
Under the DomeBy Stephen King
Stephen King Writes a Spellbinding Supernatural Novel "UNDER THE DOME"On an entirely normal, beautiful fall day in Chester's Mill, Maine, the town is inexplicably and suddenly sealed off from the rest of the world by an invisible force field. Planes crash into it and fall from the sky in flaming wreckage, a gardener's hand is severed as "the dome" comes down on it, people running errands in the neighboring town are divided from their families, and cars explode on impact. No one can fathom what this barrier is, where it came from, and when -- or if -- it will go away.Dale Barbara, Iraq vet and now a short-order cook, finds himself teamed with a few intrepid citizens -- town newspaper owner Julia Shumway, a physician's assistant at the hospital, a select-woman, and three brave kids. Against them stands Big Jim Rennie, a politician who will stop at nothing -- even murder -- to hold the reins of power, and his son, who is keeping a horrible secret in a dark pantry. But their main adversary is the Dome itself. Because time isn't just short. It's running out.Stephen King’s Under The DomeBook trailers are an interesting recent development in marketing. The very concept doesn’t make a whole lot of sense at first, seeing as books don’t actually have visual scenes to make a trailer out of, but done properly, they can be pretty effective tools for creating buzz around a new novel. And sometimes, they can be pretty cool. The trailer for Stephen King’s new book, Under The Dome, falls squarely into the “cool” category. The novel follows the inhabitants of a small town that is trapped in a huge, clear dome by unknown forces.Some say King’s best years are behind him; I disagree. That’s not to say I enjoy every last one of his books – hell, the man’s written so many, there’s no way they could all be great. But when he’s on, he’s one of the best writers in modern horror (and sometimes science fiction). To me, it seems that he’s at his best when he gives himself room to breathe, page-wise. The Stand is brilliant; so is It. Both are over 1000 pages. The Dark Tower series, his masterpiece, unfolds over the course of seven increasingly long books. Under The Dome will be 1088 pages long; hopefully, that means we can expect the epic storytelling and surprisingly personal character development the author, at his best, is capable of.Check out the trailer below; it’s short, but it got me kinda pumped for this book.
UNDER THE DOME BY STEPHEN KING
VISIONS OF 2012 DOOMSDAYDear Friend,Are you tired?Tired of all the misinformation out there about 2012?If you've done even one Google search on the topic you know what I'm talking about... SURVIVE 2012Where well-meaning “experts” went wrong... and why all the governments of the world ultimately decided not to tell you the truth.What is really going to happen in December of 2012... and exactly how millions will be devastated, and your world will be turned upside down... forever.How you can safeguard your life... and the lives of your family members. Because you really can survive... and spiritually thrive in the wake of this life-changing event.VISIONS OF 2012 DOOMSDAY - (1)VISIONS OF 2012 DOOMSDAY - (2)VISIONS OF 2012 DOOMSDAY - (3)VISIONS OF 2012 DOOMSDAY - (4)VISIONS OF 2012 DOOMSDAY - (5)The Underground Kingdom of Light - 1Journey Into The Resistance Movement - 2Galatic Wars - 3Liberation of the Planet Earth - 4Vision 2012 - 5It will begin suddenly, without warning. Many scandals that will disclose true backgound about how the System works will shake human masses. Disclosures about how international energetic megacompanies earn billions selling oil, preventing at the same time inventions of free energy to come to public. Disclosures about pharmaceutical trusts that earn money with "healing" diseases that are spread with viruses created in hidden laboratories. Disclosures about efficient cures for AIDS, cancer and other diseases that are known for quite some time, unkonwn to human masses. And about world media and censorship there, which is a logical consequence of a fact that few individuals own most worldly known newspaper, media and telecommunication companies. And finally disclosures about a secret world government that has most prominent politicians as its puppets and which creates profit out of wars and human suffering for millenia, a small group of beings that you work for in your jobs and voluntarily give them a significant amount of your monthly salary.When lists with names, supported with facts will be known, human masses will arise. When facts will be known about what is happening in the stock market and where the money really goes, this will create a world stock market crash and fall of the current monetary system. Riots will begin as a consequence of released emotional energy which was suppressed for so long. In the chaos of those days members of the Resistance movement will reveal themselves to humanity and give guidance and support. They will penetrate to the surface from their undergound realms and bring along technology that will help humanity to get over those critical moments. They will cure most of currently known diseases with their medicaments. With their free energy sources they will end world energy crisis and stop environmental pollution. They will bring information that will open the eyes of people. Finally people will realize that they have lived in quarantine for millenia. Money will disappear and will be replaced with exchange of goods based upon vibrational economy. The Resistance movement will assist in establishing new world government which will be chosen by humanity with its free will and that will lead humanity based on the principles of the Galactic codex. At that point the energy field of the planet will be cleared significantly. Memories of Atlantis will be returning to people and they will begin to create a New Atlantis, a new civillization of light. Buildings will be constructed in a combination of Atlantean and modern architecture which will be in harmony with nature. Many will be in a pyramidal or half spherical shape. Spiritually developed individuals will begin to gather in New age communities, so called islands of light. Everybody there will follow his vision aligned with the divine plan in deep connection with the universe. When people will release the past, everybody will experience clarity of mind, emotional aliveness and physical health. The basic cell of society in islands of light will not be a family of personalities (father, mother and children) but a family of souls (twin souls, soulmates and other members of a soul family). People will connect there energetically and telepathically with angels, guides and extraterestrials. Through islands of light a physical connection between the surface of the planet and extraterrestrial civillizations will be established. There will be teleportation chambers in islands of light through which it will be possible to travel into the Resistance movement, for some people into the Atlantean network and also towards the Pleiadian motherships. When the network of light will be strong and stable enough this will enable mass landings of Pleiadian starships. The Pleiadians will assist humanity during its transition towards the New age and with the process of acceptance of this planet into the Galactic confederation. They will anchor energy columns that will guide planet Earth throuh its transformation during its entry into the inner section of the tachyon belt.When the critical mass of consciousness will be achieved the first wave of Ascension will occur. Motherships of the Galactic confederation will hover as brilliant white clouds above the islands of light, where teleportation beams will descend and lift the volunteers into the motherships. Those volunteers will reappear on Earth shortly in Ascended state in their rainbow bodies of light. Soon afterwards another critical mass will be achieved and the second wave of Ascension will happen. Masses of Ascended masters that will return to Earth will prepare humanity for the third wave of Ascension and for the Evacuation. Great planetary cataclisms will begin then as a cleansing of the physical matter of the planet. At the moment of most intensive cataclisms a polar shift will happen and that will trigger the third wave of Ascension with final Evacuation. Linear time as we know it will end and Earth will enter a new, higher dimension. This is a moment when the Mayan calendar ends, a moment in 2012.
Speech Ban Draws Crowd at Board Meeting
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32750708/ns/local_news-delaware_valley_panj/
"Schools Differ Over Obama Speech" article in local press
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/buffalogrove/news/1760446,bg-obamaspeech-090909-s1.article
Now that I've heard President Obama's speech to schoolchildren,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iqsxCWjCvI
I'm even more disappointed in the furor that caused school districts (including my own) to not air it live. Why? Because it was more inspiring than I thought it would be. Interestingly enough, it was a speech any conservative, any Republican president, would have been proud to give. It was about personal responsibility. It gave compelling reasons why school is relevant. And it was clearly effective. How much more could one ask from a speech?
In my quest to continue to understand why my school district did not air this speech on September 8th, I've researched precedent and spoke to those in my school district who were willing to speak about this, a total of one person. All of the letters I wrote, the inquiries I made, only one person from the school called me and it wasn't even the individual who wrote the letter to the parents announcing the banning of the speech.
Because I don't want to publicly express who that person was who did call me, because I did not indicate to them that I would be publicizing their comments, I will use that shadowy press term I've always wanted to use: It was "a very highly placed source." Oooooohhhhhhh.
My source indicated that they could not yet give an official response to my letter I sent to the superintendent, because apparently, there is going to be some official more general reiteration of the district's stance down the road. This confused me a bit in that I thought they already had a stance iterated.
My source did want to assure me that "the District's decision to not air the President's speech live was not politically motivated", though their own letter explaining why they would not air the speech said, "the airing of this speech has already become a very politically charged topic in the press and a significant concern for many of our parents."
I explained that I never made a claim that the board itself was casting a political statement by not airing the speech, but instead, bowing to pressure from constituents who had a political or personal agenda against the President of the United States. Furthermore, I explained, as I explained in my letter, that there were a whole host of other reasons this was poor judgement to not air the speech. Not the least of which is that it would be good for children to hear and not airing it broke with precedent as many other presidents made similar speeches in the past to much less resistance.
While there was some typical partisan dissent in the past, it never elevated itself to the wackyness of the current fervor (child indoctrination claims, brainwashing) nor the wholesale deletion of the event from school agendas. Though to that point, I challenge my board: I cannot definitively find record of my school district airing the Reagan and the George H.W. speeches, but I find no record they didn't either. I would be interested in a public statement from the board indicating what did happen on October 1, 1991 when George H.W. Bush gave the speech and in the 1980's when Ronald Reagan gave his speech. It might prove enlightening, it could even make their case that this is precedent for this school district to not air such speeches (precedent I would still disagree with).
My source also interestingly said that the superintendent had final power re this decision and that the board supported it. Really? The superintendent has final say? Now, I'm no expert here, but I thought in most municipalities that the board is elected and the board had hiring and firing power over the superintendent. Doesn't that give the board final say? How could the person being hired have final say over the person hiring them?
So I looked up some past cases. Here's an excerpt from a legal case in Harrisburg, PA concerning a curricula decision regarding "intelligent design."
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The school board, not teachers, should decide what belongs in the public-school curriculum, said the assistant superintendent of a school district being sued over whether "intelligent design" belongs in science classes.
The Dover Area School Board decided in October 2004 to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. Teachers were opposed to the statement, which says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and which refers students to the textbook "Of Pandas and People" for more information.
The board has final say on such curriculum decisions, Michael Baksa, the assistant superintendent, testified Thursday during the landmark federal trial. "Once the board makes a decision, whether you agree with the decision or not, it's your responsibility to implement it," he said.
Well, that's interesting. If Illinois law re school boards is like Pennsylvania law, then the board should have made the decision about whether to air this speech, not the superintendent.
My source also indicated that the "grade level" of this speech (apparently graded by Microsoft according to my source, who I wasn't aware was in the grading of speeches business) was at "7th grade" and therefore inappropriate (or not understandable) for other grades (below I assume). I tried to wrap my head around this and carry it to it's logical conclusion. One would have to either have the sitting president create 12 different speeches to accommodate each of the grades and in addition, due to curricula concerns my source had, also coordinate with the board (or the superintendent) to correlate the speech to existing curricula mapping of our school district or not give the speech.
Clearly, when one tries to carry this to it's logical conclusion, it simply isn't logical. This speech cannot be measured as though it's part of standard curricula. It's not meant to be and it cannot be judged in that way. It's an historic event. It's an inspirational speech given by our President to help our children and our society. It's simply much ado about nothing to be against airing it live or otherwise. To somehow say that down the road the board (or the superintendent?) will review the speech and then they might air pieces of it "not live"is simply missing the point, besides smacking of censorship. Airing the speech preferentially later would be like airing the moon landing only after review. Yes, I hear the criticism already, "this is not the moon landing." But the speech was historic (first black president, remember?). It's also helpful for our educational system. The point, quite simply, is that it should not have been "banned" because t was meant to inspire kids and who could argue with that?
And there was another issue the source had with my argument. They said the speech wasn't "banned" but they didn't offer an alternative adjective. Then what was it? Temporarily banned? Forbidden but not really? Ban means to forbid something. If you later then allow it, you lift the ban. This is simply semantics to say it wasn't banned. It was clearly forbidden to be aired live. So the live broadcast was banned. Simple as that. This argument over minutia is one of the issues, as it's trying to create rationale through loophole. When things are wrong, we tend to use fine print to make them seem right and that is wrong.
So what did I do with my six-year old that evening of the speech? We watched the speech in bed as his bedtime story. Contrary to concerns about this being above my son's ability to comprehend, he understood quite a bit of the speech thank you. My son, to be fair, wandered at points, he asked questions, he did all of the things we all do when listening to speeches (or reading long blogs). But he got a lot out of it. Though not as much as he would have, had he been with the entire school sitting together in an auditorium. There's a reason we have movie theaters. There's simply something more important about an event when it's shared.
I would hope that the world sees that sharing, tolerance and togetherness, is what we need more of, and divisiveness, hatred and prejudice, is what we need less of.
Larry K. Fleming, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Lincolnshire-Prairie View School District 103
Administration Offices
1370 Riverwoods Road
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
Dear Superintendent Fleming,
Because I felt it was my parental obligation, I tried to explain to my son why he won’t be hearing President Obama speak to his class this Tuesday and I found myself at a loss for words. No matter how I tried to explain “why” to him, being as objective and sensitive as I could, it just felt wrong. That in itself should be a litmus test of not only this, but any action: Can you explain it to a child and feel good about yourself? I would think that a school district, more than anyone else would have realized that their actions are unexplainable to a child and therefore probably not the correct judgment to make.
I don’t envy you and other school administrators being put in the middle of a political debate. Not the debate about the speech President Obama will give to school children, but being put in the middle of the more fundamental debate, between those who “like” and “do not like” President Obama. Because that’s what this controversy of President Obama’s speech to school children is really about. Not about the speech itself. The contents of the speech are not even known, so how could it be about the speech? It’s about the mere fact that President Obama is going to give a speech to schoolchildren. Most everyone, especially well educated people as yourself, understand, from the synopsis given by the White House, that the speech is well intentioned at best and innocuous at worst. I do not believe any rational individual actually believes the speech is an attempt to “indoctrinate our children” as has been incredulously stated by some mainstream politicians and media, or that the speech is “something you’d expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq”, which Oklahoma Republican State Senator Steve Russell actually said. What this is really about, is an indication of the polarization of our society and probably more likely about racism, hatred, fear and paranoia.
But political ideology is not supposed to be your fight. Educational decisions should not be made because opponents or proponents of a particular ideology apply pressure to a school district. But unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening by school district 103 caving in to what can only be considered “mob politics”, thus taking marching orders from the squeakiest wheels. Never before have I heard of the President of the United States effectively being censored by a school district. I didn’t see any such censorship when Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush spoke to schoolchildren, or whenever any President, or for that matter any politician or community spokesperson came to speak at a school. And that’s all this really is, the President is coming to speak at your school, except in this case, he’s speaking virtually and not live.
If President Obama had chosen Sprague or Stevenson School in district 103 to speak at live, would your office have refused him as well? Denied his request to give a speech to encourage our children to stay in school? I doubt it. Then why is the “virtual presence” of our President being denied? Because we live in the Internet age when the President can visit schools all at once and “indoctrinate them?” That can’t be it either, because politicians broadcasting speeches from schools (from kindergarten to commencements) have been going on since the advent of radio and no such school district censorship that I’m aware of has ever existed before. So why are we asking this president to drink from another water fountain?
The mission statement of district 103 is “to provide innovative learning experiences which empower each student to excel and make a difference in a diverse and interconnected world.” Are we empowering each student to excel and to make a difference in a diverse and interconnected world by caving to political pressure and denying them access to an historical event such as this, when the first black president in the history of the United States is going to make his first speech to our country’s children?
The mission statement of Sprague says,“Sprague School is dedicated to the development of lifelong learners. We encourage creativity through experimentation, problem solving, and reflection, while acknowledging and welcoming individual differences. We foster collaboration among staff, parents, and children to create an environment that is best for our students.”
Are we “welcoming individual differences” or are we censoring them by this action of not allowing our children to see this speech? Is this any different then when school districts and libraries around our country tried (and succeeded) in banning books such as Catch-22 and even Gone With the Wind?
Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, this last Friday, defended Obama's plan to address students. He said "The bottom line is we need the president of the United States of America to use his bully pulpit to talk to kids about the importance of education and to help inspire kids,"
If President Obama was using his “bully pulpit” to preach doctrine, as Ronald Reagan did in 1988 when during that speech to school children he actually incredulously preached about the importance of cutting taxes, then I’d have a problem with President Obama’s speech. But that is not what this speech is proposed to be about. And that’s the other point of all of this. District 103, as I have indicated above, has made an opinion about not carrying this speech before they even know it’s content. Is that a lesson we want our children to learn, to judge books by their cover?
And we actually even have a very good idea of what will be said in President Obama’s speech so we don’t have to judge a book by it’s cover. When one reads the official notice that came from the White House, it’s simply impossible to reconcile those words with the paranoia about this speech. The White House’s official letter to educators said, “ During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. The U.S. Department of Education invites students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president deliver the address, which will be broadcast live on the White House Web site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/live/) and on C-SPAN at 12:00 p.m., ET. We also encourage educators to use this moment to help students get focused and inspired to begin the new academic year. The Department of Education offers educators a menu of classroom activities—created by its teachers-in-residence, the Teaching Ambassador Fellows—to help engage students in the address and stimulate classroom discussions about the importance of education.
Some call all of this paranoia “Obamaphobia”, the irrational fear, which some say stems from a black man running our country. If that’s what is really at the root of all of this hatred, what are we teaching our children by intentionally or unintentionally supporting such behavior? There are those in our society that openly don’t believe that Barack Obama is legitimately the President of the United States, trying to delegitimize him by being disrespectful, by questioning the location of his birth against all logic and proof and by many other means. I’m not sure if the roots of that are racism, or other hatred, or actual belief, but anyone who believes in this country, knows that education is the only route up to success. President Obama, with all he has to do, I truly believe, is simply trying to make a difference in our country and in our world by attempting to inspire our children to stay in school and work hard. When one simply listens to that stated goal and then reflects on the controversy surrounding such a well intentioned and innocent news moment, it’s simply hard to believe this nonsensical debate even exists. But we live in the world of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle where minutia rises to the level of importance. The difference here is that school districts are reacting to the chatter rather than rising above it.
When one looks at this from other viewpoints, from simply the viewpoint of respect, the district’s censorship of this speech doesn’t pass muster. If a local firehouse wanted fireman to give a speech about virtually anything, the district would welcome the visit. Schools respect what fireman stand for, they save lives. Where is the respect for the President of the United Sates? What are we teaching our children about our country and about respect for authority or simply stature? Politicians do not deserve deference to the point of submission simply because of their title, for sure, but respect is a different matter altogether and the district’s actions are simply disrespectful to anyone, let alone the President of the United States.
To me, there is an irony and a contradiction in the way we treat other forms of respect for our nation, in our nation’s schools.
Illinois law mandates that “The Pledge of Allegiance shall be recited each school day by pupils in elementary and secondary educational institutions supported or maintained in whole or in part by public funds. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27-3 (2005). The statute says each student must recite the Pledge each day — with no exception for those who do not wish to do so. However, in a federal lawsuit that was filed, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statute did not violate the students’ rights, so long as students were free not to participate in the recitation of the Pledge. Sherman v. Community Consol. School Dist. 21 of Wheeling Tp., 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992).”
The State of Illinois mandates the pledge of allegiance but also allows children to not say it if they choose. District 103, as an entity representing all children of our district, has made a unilateral decision that no school child should listen to the President’s speech. How does that reconcile with the mandate to take part in the pledge of allegiance, but also the freedom to dissent? Because he is the President of the United States, shouldn’t listening to the President’s speech on Tuesday be the default, just like general respect for our flag is? We teach that. But because this is a great nation, if one doesn’t want to listen to the President, they can do that. They can do what those against this speech are espousing, they can stay home from school or simply not attend the event and the school can honor and respect that as well. But why does the district get to restrict all children from hearing this speech and by doing so, take a political stand? Carrying the speech is taking much less of a political stand because that is the norm, that is precedent. District 103’s decision to censor the speech is unprecedented. On the night of 9/11, I was at Stevenson High School as they broadcast George W. Bush’s speech to the nation. Why did the school not censor that? Why did they carry it at Stevenson? Because it was the President speaking about an historic newsworthy event. While this speech is far less critical or dramatic, it’s still historic and newsworthy. It isn’t only news if it’s bad news. So why is the district not carrying good historic news?
The answer again must be pressure. That’s why this speech is not being carried. When mainstream media label this speech as “brainwashing, ala Hitler Youth”, when commentators such as Glen Beck say this is more evidence of the "indoctrination of your children” it’s clear that they are then influencing those who I’m sure wrote you angry letters. Fox commentator Malkin linked the President’s Tuesday speech, prior to hearing it, with "Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers' pedagogical philosophy.” She went on to say that “The left has always used kids as guinea pigs and as junior lobbyists for their social liberal agenda.” Given these incredibly broad, distorted remarks fueled by hatred, how could the district not give the impression of agreeing with these fringe attitudes by bowing to pressure from a particular segment of our society?
President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington D.C. school in the fall of 1991, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard.
All that is different in President Obama’s speech is that it’s President Obama.
There is a known tactic in the world of social opinion called FAD: fear, uncertainty and doubt. The idea is to plant the seeds of fear and it will propagate. District 103 is an unwitting partner in that mission and for that I’m very sad. Charles Saylors, president of the national Parent Teacher Association, felt that same emotion when he said the uproar over Obama's speech is "sad." He went on to say, "The president of the United States, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to have a presentation and have a pep talk, if you will, to America's students," he told CNN.
I’m an ardent supporter of school district 103 and have been for 20 years. My eldest child is a doctoral student and my youngest is two, all have been or are slated to be in school district 103, because I’ve always been proud of the quality of education provided. But today, I’m less proud.
At its broadest, the district’s decision smacks of an era in our history when “un-American activities” were defined as liking a particular ideology that other’s didn’t, in this case, oddly, the as of yet unspoken words of our President. It’s even odd to describe.
I leave to the end of this response, the specific reasons given in the district’s letter as to why they are not allowing our students to see the President’s speech as it is given:
The district’s letter says,
“The airing of this speech has already become a very politically charged topic in the press”
That should be irrelevant.
The district’s letter goes on to say,
“and a significant concern for many of our parents.”
Not to me and I would believe, not to many people. The letter offers no specifics as to how many people have contacted their offices one way or the other. It simply says “many.” If “many” parents believed that a fireman shouldn’t speak at school, would or should that affect the district having the fireman speak? I would think not.
“The U.S. Department of Education has sent out suggested classroom activities and promoted a student video contest with $1,000 prizes”
The district’s letter doesn’t at all quote the substance of the proposed speech; it simply gives this one random (rather parenthetical) comment, which does not even explain what the speech’s intentions are, to inspire children about their schooling.
The district’s letter then says,
“We have a responsibility as educators to determine what information will be included in our curriculum.”
Fair enough, the district creates curricula. But the district determined in this case “what information will be included” and they felt that it should not include a speech from the President of the United States, which clearly is simply about inspiring school children to excel. I take great exception with that. I think this sort of speech is exactly what should be included in my child’s curricula, inspiration about staying in school. And I think even more importantly the words are important if they are the words of the elected leader of our country. I would feel no different if it was George W. Bush speaking. I would defend, to death, as the oft- quoted phrase says, his right to say it even if I disapproved of it.
The district’s letter then concludes,
“Since we have not had an opportunity to review the text of President Obama’s speech to determine age appropriateness, ties to our curriculum, and usefulness as an instructional tool, we will not be showing President Obama’s speech in classrooms on September 8.”
The district has “not had an opportunity to review the text” and yet they are making a decision about it? Based on what? That it’s coming from Brack Obama? What sense does that make?
Additionally the district will have an opportunity to review the text on Monday, so why not wait till then? Because it’s a holiday? I don’t think any teacher at school would accept from a student that they didn’t do homework because it was given over the holidays.
The district then makes claims that they can’t determine if this will tie to curriculum or be useful “as an instructional tool.” Is it really practical to think that a sitting president can be involved with each school district’s curricula mapping which took place years ago and then create speeches that coordinate? This is a news event, simply meant to inspire children. It’s a well-intentioned Department of Education initiative no different then “Just Say No to Drugs” (which incidentally most all school districts endorsed even though it’s naïve statement was considered ineffectual).
The district letter then caps the above statement in bold, saying that the district will not be showing President Obama’s speech. In bold? To be clear or to be forceful?
The letter then says,
“We will record the speech for teachers so that they have an opportunity to review the content to determine potential usefulness of the speech, or portions of it, as an educational tool.”
That phrase feels like the familiar words of censors through the ages.
And the letter concludes,
“This approach will also give you, as a parent, the opportunity to make the decision on whether or not to have your child view the speech with you at home.”
The wording makes it seem as though the letter is talking about our decision for our child to view something controversial. Out of context, one would think the subject matter is sex or drugs. But instead, the subject matter is the President of the United States attempting to inspire our children to love school.
I’m completely perplexed about this entire matter and why district 103 would even give those that pressure them the time of day, let alone, allow them to dictate school policy.
I respectfully ask that you reverse your decision and simply state that “it is not the school district’s policy to be involved in or take political sides” and since this is an “approved event from the federal Department of Education” you will air it. One could even add, “if any parent has a personal objection, their child is not at all forced to watch the event and may leave or not attend school.”
Best Regards,
Steve Sulkin
This was received from my local school district. See next post for my response.
1370 Riverwoods Road • Lincolnshire, Il 60069
847/295-4030 • FAX 847/295-9196
http://www.district103.k12.il.us
September 4, 2009
Dear Parents and Guardians,
As you may know, President Obama plans to present a White House address
directly to children on September 8, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. Central Standard Time, which
is during our regular school day. The airing of this speech has already become a very
politically charged topic in the press and a significant concern for many of our parents.
The U.S. Department of Education has sent out suggested classroom activities and
promoted a student video contest with $1,000 prizes.
We have a responsibility as educators to determine what information will be
included in our curriculum. Since we have not had an opportunity to review the text of
President Obama’s speech to determine age appropriateness, ties to our curriculum,
and usefulness as an instructional tool, we will not be showing President Obama’s
speech in classrooms on September 8. We will record the speech for teachers so
that they have an opportunity to review the content to determine potential usefulness of
the speech, or portions of it, as an educational tool.
This approach will also give you, as a parent, the opportunity to make the
decision on whether or not to have your child view the speech with you at home.
Sincerely,
Larry Fleming, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Hello dear president,This is a cool community blogs and I want to wish you all the best from a Romanian fun.Have a good live and be strong and wise.
Contact: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com
It has been my perception that what has driven some Americans increasingly in the past two decades has been personal greed; greed not for just money but for power, control, influence, domination, security, knowledge, ideology, ..., all for individual or limited closed association/club benefit. That is not only the mentality of individuals, but of people operating in government and business as well.
We now witness the results of greed by a select few:
Corrupt and special interest government officials who set themselves above as aristocrats regulating government for their own investments or hidden ownerships in companies and organizations. Many who also take bribes and illicit favors from corrupt lobbyists.Laws are actually written/drafted by who? Do you really think your legislator, congressman, or senator sits down in front of a computer or uses his own pen and paper? Or, did you think it's his staff? It is lobbyists who actually do 99% of the work; work they have vested interests in, to see it is written the way their 'client' wants it worded. Do you as an individual have lobbyists employed by you? Financial institutions that cheat and steal from the unsuspecting, far beyond the weak laws of usury. Trustworthy? Bank & 'Trust?' Wanna givem another bailout for cheating? It looks like lobbying paid off for the financial 'institutions' (we have all been taught to 'respect?' the term 'institution?', but maybe we are learning). Insurance Companies that 'legally?' bribe law enforcement, judges, and congress/legislators with grants, equipment gifts, perks, and free trips in order to gain unprecedented influence/control -- everything from mandatory laws, to not or barely paying claims, to price fixing, to all sorts of corrupt and unfavorable methods imposed on individuals. Do most people realize that premiums (a name of 'respect?' for monthly payments you are charged) are used by Insurance Companies to pay for -- grants, equipment gifts, perks and trips as payoffs for public laws, regulations, and controls that the public does not want. It is a form of taxation represented/controlled by insurance companies, not taxation with public representation. It's a twisted form of taxation charged by insurance companies. Manufacturing barons who import economic slave labor and outsource to slavery. Pharmaceutical corporations that cover-up sickness and death with misinformation in order to push up profits. Weapons manufacturers that promote violence, war, and enduring sickness. Energy companies that monopolize production/prices and cause destructive environmental damage.American Companies, or those using names, that import/offshore products who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to safety, quality, and poisons.Service providers that care not about consumers but are strictly money driven, with less regard for employees; employees who suffer with unreasonable demands for performance and who are not paid a living wage. Private educational institutions that cater to the wealthy who have abandoned the public. The concept for the masses of "let them eat cake"; they will eventually go away from malnutrition of education because it will make them perish; and, those who survive can be the servants. Suburban Public School administrators in growing housing markets whose actual and hidden agendas are to serve land developers and government aristocrats. They play statistical number games made of fudge, intentionally choking out struggling students by actually encouraging students to drop out or be 'home schooled' by mom or dad. That's how suburban schools 'look' more attractive to potential home buyers, with faked academic 'success' -- faking the 'No Child Left Behind' statistics, a real game, using kids as pawns. But aristocrats brag, statistically they look like they have done a good enough job to re-elect them. And, most importantly to them, they can continue to reap the profits from either the land they own or are financially connected with.Inner City School administrators in decaying areas that hopelessly cope with being under funded, attracting the poorest quality teachers. Children do not choose to be born into poor families, or choose uncaring parents, nor do they choose parents that are ignorant and uneducated. Do these kids have the hope of opportunity? They are pushed aside as the burdens of a greedy society, in hopes they are not seen nor heard from now or later in life -- good to be used as the pawns in wars, or workers for catering to the wealthy though. Employees of city/county/state/fed. institutions (schools, universities, jails, prisons, leases/sales of buildings to Gov., contracted services, hospitals, VA facilities,...) who take kickbacks and gifts, in return for higher costs and sweetheart deals with companies often owned by or financially benefiting government aristocrats.Major colleges and universities chasing the buck by catering to overseas students. They somehow brag of a 40% to 60% foreign enrollment, while American students grasp for help and aid. Community colleges that are given the leftovers in funds, coping with unrealistic expectations of graduating students or preparing them for major colleges. Even with 100% tuition/books paid, it is unrealistic to expect students to juggle working full time jobs (for food and living) while going to school and studying full time. It is not surprising to see such an astronomically high dropout rate in America. Capitalist have made it clear to students, not to have hopes that are too costly; or, they will import already educated talent. Do wealthy capitalist require students in their families to work full time at low paying jobs while pursuing higher education's? Maybe they simply know it's a story made up for the 'less fortunate', like a fairytale dream, achieved by one to two percent and used as shining examples, stories told to pacify the masses. Those with capital also know, they can hire a well enough educated dropout at a reduced rate to do the job of a graduate, a real bargain. …
We could each recite instances far beyond this short list, and it is all for greed. People’s greed has been rooting through our nation and causing so much destruction. Certainly money has been a primary instrument of their greed, but their other instruments of power, control, influence, domination, security, knowledge, ideology, … have all been used to chip away and damage each of us who together form our great nation. With renewed vision and focused determination we will heal and rebuild to become more active and much stronger.
To learn more details, you can read my other three blogs about 1) Educational Devastation, The Need for an Entirely New System, 2) The Auto Industry, A Few of My Personal Experiences, and 3) Invention, Innovation, and Education.
Blog members can reply here, or anyone is welcome to contact me at: Alex.Karoub@gmail.com
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
Congrats, even my 80 year old mother in Indiana voted for you which was no small feat. I am a college professor in Fort Lauderdale and I made sure all my students went out and voted but I want to tell you, I admire your managerial skills, more than anything. One of the main things is getting people involved, when a person believes what they are doing is their idea or benefit to them, they always perform much better. Never before have I seen this applied enmasse as you did with our volunteers and donaters, which brings me to my point.As a professor, I have noted that you already have a majority of the young people in college with you and now feeling part of our success. They are involved in your presidency and a year ago they did not even know who the vice president was. It is a entire new attitude from the young people, I love it. I have never seen this in 25 years of teaching.
My suggestion.. .offer a scholarship competition for the best energy efficient vehicle design,energy use in building and interior design, new energy sources and so on and so forth. Allow it developed at the university level in team effort so cross over skills in various programs can be utilized. Whenever ideas are exchanged between different majors thats when innovative new ideas occur Have a top 3-5 winner range,reward all members of the TEAM , faculty involved and school and do it annually. You have a fired up base, students as well as educators. The minds are here to help America solve our energy crisis, competition always leads to perfection,drive and purpose. The reward increases all of these.I am working in holographic technology we have already took 200 dollars worth of equipment and a couple months ago made a HD TV display the objects as holographs in front of you. This technology would decrease the need to travel by virtually putting someone in a conference room with complete interactivity without being there. If you watched CNN on election night they did this with an alternative method of broadcasting a live person.
This is here and it is available now.
Anyway, all America needs is a push in the educational system to develop it cheaply and enmasse.
If new jobs and new energy is what we need, we need new inovations and lets put our young minds in this manhanttan project and become the technology leaders of the world.
This blog will be about my experience as a student teacher in a rural town in Ohio. I am trying to teach the kids the importance of voting through the use of a mock election and other assignments. My students have very little concern with what is going on in the world today and these the future voters of America. I am trying to make them understand that although some of them aren't old enough to vote yet, that the next president will be presiding over their 18th birthday and that these changes may soon affect them more than they realize.
Ralph H. Baer Joins the www.GamingKrib.com as an Advisor…“Father of the Video Game” in 1966 Ralph made a revolutionary invention: the video game - many of them. He is noted for his many contributions to games and the video game industry. In 2006, he was awarded the National Medal of Technology for inventing the home console for video games and spawning the video game industry. In 2005, he recieved the “Legend Award” for his work in the development of video games.between learning and retaining math information.
all
No Comments »
Today while canvassing on my neighbor to neighor contacts I walked past a little gang of about 7 to 8 five, six and seven year-old children. They were siting on and congregated around the front steps and sidewalk on a street called Spring Garden Street between 7th and 8th street. I heard one child say, "we'll kill Obama." Then another child said "yeah, we'll kill Obama."
I was really quite shocked to hear such words from such little children in this small Eastern PA town. And I started to think about the importance of education and how the words of these children spell out what is needed in our country. Our highest priority is our children and their education. Our children are our country's future leaders.
Barack Obama promises change and one of the areas that needs drastic change is our educational system. Barack Obama will bring the educational changes we need.
The most important time for education of children is in their first six years. So it is very important to bring excellent teachers into head start programs, day care programs, pre-school programs, and Kindergarten and First and Second grade programs. The most important education begins at these early ages and in these programs are the beginnings of a college education. College education doesn't start right before you go off to college. It starts when you are young and are developing sound values, beliefs, and attitudes.
And presidential candidates should pay attention to the young people when they make up their lies to put in disgusting ads on television for every child to watch. What are they thinking when they are giving young children at the age of five, six, and seven, the kind of values they are espousing in their ads. Young children are smart and hear and see everything. They absorb more than anyone thinks.
By influencing adults with lies and distortions, they are also influencing the children of these adults. What is that going to do for our country? Will that make us a better country?
I got home and listened to a new ad that talks of Obama's statement about people "clinging to their guns and religions." This ad was put out by a right wing organization that is worried that Obama is going to take their guns away. The Right wing has got it all mixed up about Obama's statement. Obama wasn't talking about hunting rifles. He was talking about keeping AK47 asault rifles out of the hands of people intent on committing criminal acts. You don't need an AK47 to go hunting with. But the NRA and the Republicans want ordinary folks to believe that Obama wants to take all their guns away, so they are dwelling on that statement, without any real knowledge of what the statement meant. Obama was talking about security. People feel more secure when they go to church and believe in God, or when they have a weapon to protect themselves. But they are not thinking about why people are so fearful and need this security. In everywhere across the country especially in the bigger cities, crime is excessive and much worse than it has ever been. Even in my own little neck of the woods - a small city, the worst gangs operate. We are only 80 miles from New York City and 60 miles from Philadelphia and oftentimes people come to areas like this seeking to hide out or go on a crime spree. And we also have our own homegrown crimes that are terrible.
And even years ago when my father was alive, he kept guns for protection out in the country on the farm, to feel more secure. He never had to use them. And even when it comes to hunting rifles way back when, I happened to live right down the street from a tragedy. The family had about six children and hunting rifles. Most all farmers have hunting rifles. Somehow one of the little boys got a hold of one of the rifles and killed his little brother accidentally. That was back about 55 years ago. So gun accidents are not new. It happened in my own back yard out in the country. But still Americans should have the right to bear arms according to our constitution, but here again education is very important. With better education at all levels, violence would decrease, gun accidents would decrease, spousal abuse would decrease, and even our economy would shape up. And certainly all people need a better education when it comes to government, the environment, and how things work in the 21st century.
Barack Obama has the vision and leadership to change our system for the better, with better schools, better teachers, more teachers, more educational resources, and better government all the way around - 360 degrees.
To view this blog post with music and Barack Obama messages taped on his podcast in the past access this link
By Daniel Kurtzman, About.com
"They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed. They say, 'We need to boil all the hope out of him -- like us -- and then he'll be ready.'" (Watch video
********************************
'Eye Without A Face' by Mark Bellinghaus, Copyright 2008
Life is all about signs...seeing the signs....understanding the signs...acting upon the signs
--Mark Bellinghaus
Extract & Photo caption/description posted on OUR MARILYN BLOG - you can find the entire blog article here: blog.ourmarilyn.com/2008/08/31/marilyn-monroe-would-have-voted-f .. and also here: my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/markbellinghaus/gG5W75 Ella Fitzgerald & Marilyn Monroe, in 1955 (above) and in 1962, (below), the year Marilyn Monroe passed away. In 1955, when racism was still a big issue in the United States of America, Ella Fitzgerald became the first African-American to perform at the Mocambo, after Marilyn Monroe had lobbied the owner for the booking. The booking was instrumental in Fitzgerald's career. Marilyn would promise the owner that she would appear every night (and be on time), and this way also fill the house--and she did, she was there every night, and she filled the house and: she was always on time! Their close friendship lasted for many years and Ella would sing Marilyn Monroe's famous 'My Heart Belongs To Daddy' in honor of her wonderful friend Marilyn Monroe, who died almost 34 years before she passed on in 1996, at age 79. Barack Obama Quotes: 'They say I need to be seasoned; they say I need to be stewed. They say, 'We need to boil all the hope out of him -- like us -- and then he'll be ready.' 'I have nothing to hide, I enjoy being myself. I'm not going to change who I am just because it's Halloween." -appearing as himself on Saturday Night Live as part of a skit that featured Hillary Clinton dressed as a witch at a Halloween party * 'It's like I was shot out of a cannon. I'm so overexposed that I make Paris Hilton look like a recluse.' 'Hillary is not the first politician in Washington to declare 'Mission Accomplished' a little too soon.' Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday to President John F. Kennedy, who was a Democrat
Man Cannot Live on Bread Alone
Current Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama may have graduated from Harvard and taught at the University of Chicago as did U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but the similarities end there. Recently, on the 221st anniversary of the U.S. Constitution's adoption, in an article written by Abdon M. Pallasch, Scalia Says U. of C. Has Gone Liberal. Justice Scalia spoke to a roomful of conservative lawyers, The Federalist Society. He accused the University of Chicago of 'going liberal,' and in effect, 'losing its edge' (17 Sept. 2008. ).Scalia had taken what he felt were more 'bread-and-butter' classes instead of popular classes such as Current Issues in Racism and the Law, taught by Obama. Scalia felt that the courses offered were no longer as rigorous, and the philosophy no longer conservative. In fact, he not only laughed as he mentioned Law and Poverty, he also lamented the contemporary courses and called them exotic, made-up, and a waste of time. Despite the University of Law School's consistent rank as one of the nation's top five or 10 in national surveys, he admitted he would not recommend that school to future law students. Scalia was considered by Republican presidential nominee John McCain as well as President Bush to be a "strict constructionalist" who "does not legislate from the bench." As a justice who strictly adhered to the text of the U.S. Constitution, he accused his fellow justices of rewriting the Constitution with contemporary decisions on abortion, gay rights. He did admit, however, that despite his studies, he was no more qualified than Joe six-pack to determine whether or not these rights should exist. While Scalia was questioning his qualifications to determine what our Constitutional rights were, some four floors down at the Chicago Union League Club, a less conservative group, Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, did not seem to have this difficulty. They chose to celebrate the U.S. Constitution's anniversary by presenting awards to Chicago lawyers who represented accused enemy combatants who were detained without probable cause; Habeas corpus had been suspended, and no due process hearings had been given. Eighty-six percent of these detainees were picked up by Pakistani forces, not U.S. forces, but with a tempting U.S. $5,000 bounty dangling over their head. In many cases no evidence of crime found, yet basic Constitutional rights were not recognized by the Bush administration and had to be forced by the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) the Court decided that the detainees were protected by the U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus protections.The Federalist Society is an organization that was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. The fact that The Federalist Society, like Scalia, a Federalist affiliate, advocates a more conservative approach to interpret the law is ironic. The original Federalists, our Forefathers, feared people like Scalia. While impossible to enumerate all possible rights of the People in the Bill of Rights, enumerating only a few would grant too much power to those who felt it was their inalienable right to deny rights not numerated to moralize the majority with their own beliefs. Alexander Hamilton said it best in Federalist paper 84, when he asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Is it not the "power to do" our inalienable right? In his own defense, Scalia has said, "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." Apparently, that is when Scalia is not in the majority opinion. Labeled a judicial activist by Obama, he freely voices his personal opinions, and stare decisis--deeply rooted in tradition and implied in Article III of the Constitution--has little value for him unless it mimics his own judicial philosophy, a clear contradiction of originalist philosophy. For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51 (1992), he concluded that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child is not a constitutionally protected "liberty" because (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Another example is Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989), when Justice O'Conner asserted that a "'fundamental rule of judicial restraint" requires us to avoid reconsidering Roe, he stated her opinion "could not be taken seriously." In fact, the article fails to mention many important aspects of Scalia's philosophies, opinions and positions on important Constitutional issues. First of all, Scalia disagrees with the McCain and Bush label given him; that he is a 'strict constructionalist who does not legislate from the bench.' According to Linda R. Monk in, The Words We Live By-Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (95), President Jefferson--a true strict constructionist--believed "that judges should limit themselves to narrow interpretations of the Constitutional text and avoid enlarging the powers of government." Scalia, on the other hand, believes Constitution text and the Bill of Rights should limit the powers of the People, not the government. Resisting the Bush-McCain label, he hides behind his own labels of himself as a 'textualist' or 'originalist' who does not rely on the intent of the framers, nor does he believe the Constitution is an evolving document (Id. at 96) and is judiciously proscribing in a time warp as customs and traditions evolve through time.The article also mentioned that Scalia felt studying poverty law was a "waste of time" and "made up." This outrageous Scalia viewpoint is not surprising. In a similar meeting in 2004, while speaking to a hotel ballroom full of lawyers, he attacked some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last 40 years: The court was wrong, to say the Constitution requires that lawyers be provided to poor people accused of crimes. We have now determined that liberties exist under the federal Constitution -- the right to abortion, the right to homosexual sodomy -- which were so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that they were criminal for 200 years.'' (Liptak, Adam. In Re Scalia the Outspoken v. Scalia the Reserved. N.Y.Times. 2 May 2004. ).This was not the first time Scalia has made outrageous comments to the Federalist Society. When speaking to them on Valentine's Day in 2006, there was no love lost from his critics when he criticized advocates of a "living Constitution," calling them "idiots." (Scalia Blasts Advocates of 'Living Constitution.' Associated Press. 14 Feb, 2006 ). It begs the question; could Scalia's belief in the Constitution as a document fixed in time not be construed as a personal opinion and thereby affect his judgment? Our Constitution is both the oldest as well as the shortest in history, and was meant to be a living breathing document that adjusted for all times because there was no way our Founding Fathers could prepare on parchment paper all future issues that could affect our liberty rights. Certainly it can be inferred, for example, if our framers believed in an originalist concept such as Scalia's, that 'pesky' Bill of Rights would not exist, and Scalia is, therefore, a proud supporter of slavery.On the other hand, when Obama instructed law students at the University of Chicago, one of his more traditional courses was in the due process and equal protection areas of Constitutional law. In this class, he challenged Scalia's views, and stated that "the Court never explicitly embraced Justice Scalia's 'cramped' approach to defining the scope of rights protected under the substantive Due Process." Apparently, Scalia's definition of a due process right depends on how far into the notion of tradition he is willing to go. (Obama, Barack. Students in Con. Law III. Final Exam Answer Memo. 1996. < http://miniurl.com//42>).Obama analogizes this point: If we following this notion of over 200 years of deeply rooted American traditions, when the Bill of Rights was created, our forefathers could not have dreamed of whether or not cloning or in vitro are procreation rights under the due process clause, but does that give the Court the right to criminalize it? In vitro is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," and does not follow traditional notions of procreation, but is legal. Following Scalia's cramped approach; these rights should not exist, and contradict current law. Id.There are other contradictions in the article that Obama debated in his Constitutional law class. Homosexual sodomy does not follow traditional notions of family, marriage, and procreation, therefore, it is criminalized, yet heterosexual sodomy is not. Id. See: Bowers v. Hardwick, 760 F.2d 1202, (11th Cir. 1985) Both do not follow traditional notions of family, marriage, and procreation, thereby legalizing the criminality and discrimination of sodomy homosexuality, yet holding judgment for heterosexual sodomy. See: Watkins v. U.S. Army, 847 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1998). Obama further mentions Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) where Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in Bowers defends the belief that moral opposition alone rationalizes laws that express disapproval of homosexuality, since they are legally criminalized. Justice Scalia's view of public morality as a legitimate government interest would, by contrast, clearly justify Bowers-style laws. Id.The article also fails to mention that Scalia was one of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in the Boumediene v. Bush decision. This landmark decision overturned Bush administration policy as well as two acts of Congress, ruling that the Military Commission Act (MCA) suspending habeas corpus to the detainees was unconstitutional, and against the Geneva Conventions. Despite this, as well as the fact that many of the detainees were farmers and goat herders, not militants, Scalia warned, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain thought so too. However, Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama applauded the ruling, saying it was a repudiation of "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."
The article also mentions Scalia's mocking University of Chicago's 'waste of time' course offerings, yet there are both former students as well as legal scholars who disagree. John C. Eastman, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas found the Current Issues in Racism and the Law course particularly instructive:Professor Obama was leading his students in an honest assessment of competing views regarding some of the most difficult legal and policy issues our nation has ever faced--a refreshing change from what passes for debate about contested questions in our political classes these days. Only occasionally do then-Professor Obama's decidedly personal views come across. He refers to Justice Scalia's approach to assessing fundamental rights as "cramped," for example. But on the whole, this is a body of course materials that is as would be expected of Chicago Law Professors. (Kantor, Jodi. Inside Professor Obama's Classroom. The N.Y. Times. 30 July 2008. ).Although some label Obama's students as 'groupies,' John K. Wilson, one of Obama's students who took his course Race, Racism, and the Law, and author of, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, (Paradigm Publishers, Oct. 2007) has observed "the appeal of Obama, more than any other professor, was his ability to listen to different points of views in a serious way, and yet still move students in the direction of understanding the law." He also felt that, "Obama probably learned a great deal from recognizing the flaws of his colleagues rather than swallowing their ideas wholesale. Obama embodies the University of Chicago ethic of asking 'What's your evidence?' far better than most Chicago professors. As someone who was out in the trenches, he never accepted the ivory tower theorizing as superior to the facts on the ground." (The Times Distorted Professor Obama. Huffington Post. 30 July 2008. ).Finally, Scalia also mocks the study of poverty, calling it 'made up' and a 'waste of time.' Unfortunately, since the creation of the Constitution, the criminalization of poverty has increased without the acknowledgement or sympathy of many elite members of our society, but since when is poverty 'made up'? Since when is poverty not considered a 'serious' subject? Since when is studying poverty a 'waste of time'? Since when has poverty been considered 'exotic'? In his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Scalia argued that, "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected…" We have 37 million living in poverty in American--hardly what one could call exotic or made up. Could it be that his 'elitism' has blinded him to the plight of the large numbers of poor American? Perhaps some of the vast differences between Obama's and Scalia's Constitutional opinion are because Obama was a Constitutional lawyer, and Scalia taught Administrative law. However, Scalia cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he wants to uphold. It is said, "Man can not live on bread alone." Perhaps Scalia should have added 'a little meat' to his 'bread and butter' classes. Perhaps he should have listened to the majority opinion of his colleagues, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51 (1992) when they stated: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The Constitution is a living breathing document, capable of adapting to social construct while still maintaining its original purpose. There are rights in the Constitution which do not yet exist. As a dormant seed they await the right time for discovery. These rights are simply within the framework of the document. But where the powers are not explicit; then the power belongs not to Scalia, but to The People.
I admire Obama’s view on the war the most. I had just turned twelve when the war started, and now I am nineteen. I barely remember the time when we weren’t at war. When the towers fell, I was in Washington with my sister and her kids. She woke me, yelling that the twin towers were collapsing. I guess that’s when the war started…I still don’t see the connection. Saddam Hussein is dead, and Bin Laden (if he isn’t already) shouldn’t be too far behind, due to his Multiple Sclerosis. If the enemies are dead, why are we still fighting? Especially considering the situation our school budgets and health care programs are in, while Bush is spending twelve billion dollars a month on the war! Obama and I share the opinion that the money would certainly do more good if it was put into our schools and medical care.
Obama’s plan for our country’s education is also admirable. Thirty percent of new teachers choose to leave the profession within the first five years of actual teaching. In the last five years, college costs have increased nearly 40%, and the average student graduates nearly $20,000 in debt. Obama does not want Americans to have to worry about how they will afford college. His goal is for college to be a realistic option for every single person in America. If Obama is elected president, I am sure we will have fewer families for whom welfare is a necessity. I also believe we will have a much smaller issue with homelessness.
I also have to agree with Obama on some of his views on abortion. Barack Obama does not want to ban abortions, but he does want to limit them. He understands that rape victims may not want to give birth for emotional reasons, and of course, he doesn’t want one of his daughters to have a child at a young age. His answer, instead of banning abortions, is to make it easier for these women to obtain information on emergency contraceptives. He wants to reduce the number of teen pregnancies by making birth control more readily available. I personally am against abortion (except in special cases such as rape or extreme health risks to mothers and/or their unborn children), but I know that I can’t impose my own beliefs on others. While I do hope that more pregnant women will choose adoption over abortion, I suppose Obama has done well in finding a middle ground and keeping both sides happy.
It’s high time this country had a president that isn’t a stuffy old white guy. A female president would be great, but I don’t imagine there will be any women besides Clinton running for office any time soon. Barack Obama will be an awesome president, and I hope he wins the election. I believe that he is the best candidate for office, and I know he will turn our country around and hopefully bring us out of this economic disaster before we end up in another Great Depression.
Alright, I have a bone to pick about this Sarah chick.
She's pretty. No, she's not pretty, she's -- downright BEAUTIFUL! Which is what is making me stark raving mad! SO many people didn't "like" Hillary because they thought she was too manly, too rough, and definately not girl enough. However, when she DID try to be girlier, she was harrassed for it. I personally think she didn't get the male vote because she was -- average looking.
Now comes along Ms. Palin and WHAM! She's got everyone's vote! Even the independents! Why? Because she is EVERYTHING HILLARY WASN'T - especially GOOD LOOKING. And the fact that she has five kids, has many a man thinking about her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Now, I'm not trying to start anything, but seriously, have you tried talking to independents about the ISSUES on which Palin stands? Oh my gosh - she's practically HITLER! And if I have to listen to her complain one more time about people reporting on her family with that NASALLY voice, I will scream. I will, I will literally stand outside my door and scream!
For one thing, if she didn't want her family in the spotlight, then she shouldn't be parading them through the streets. ESPECIALLY since they are not exactely upstanding individuals.
With all the troubles her family has had, it is proof that you CAN'T always HAVE IT ALL. SOMETHING is going to suffer for the lack of parenting.
And to get back to my original point -- all her "mistakes" (Lobbyist loving, bridge to nowhere turned into ROAD to nowhere - on her call, affairs, troopergate, pregnant kids, drug ladden son who's choice was either join the army or go to jail) and the men STILL love her! Why? Because she's pretty! Unfortunately, I think a LOT of men are going to vote with their dick's this year.
I say this because as a pretty woman myself, I've seen how men fall all over themselves to please a pretty woman. And I also gather this conclusion from conversations with my daughter who is a Freshman at the University of Miami (where she is campaigning heavily for Obama) and she is running for a senator position on the Student Government. She was the Student Body President of a 3000, yes, three THOUSAND student body school and is interested in being in same position at Miami when she is elegible. She is OUT there - she talks to EVERYONE - she's also host of UMTV and has the opportunity to ask the important questions of many students - like, "who are you going to vote for?" And the guys all think Palin is a cougar, a MILF, that she's pretty enough to lead!
One more thought before I leave for today. (I have to get back to writing my book - thankfully it is heavily edited - ha ha ha, grammar has never been my strong point, neither has spelling...which reminds me - why no spell check here?)
My other thought for today is why don't some of these special interest groups working in defense of Obama (notice I didn't say working "for") come out and remind all these small minded Republicans all about the shame so many Rebuplicans have brought to the party. You know, Tom Delay, Craig - bathroom scenes and all ---------- I know I don't need to go on...the list would take forever to write...
And something else that irks me I'd like to mention before I sign off. When are the rural/financially struggling Republicans going to learn that everything the DEMOCRATS are fighting for will benefit them? NOT the Republican agenda?????? It never ceases to amaze me how these uneducated/guileless people have not a CLUE as to what the Republican agenda is truly all about. HELLO! If you haven't a job or you don't make enough to feed your family - you should be voting DEMOCRAT! But people like Rush Limbugh make it sound like Democrats are constantly pimping whores and are going to work all drugged up and that all we care about is being "immoral." WHAT????
I had a conversation with a business associate the other day and he insisted that the Republicans were the better party. And I agreed with him -- on one point. That our taxes WILL go up (we are in the 35% tax bracket) but I felt that as a person who makes more than "enough" we would will ultimately be living a BETTER life because if others can feel as though the United States is a place that plays fair in the job market, employees will work harder, get a better education, etc., thus stop that never ending cycle of ignorance and joblessness that brings forth much anger, homelessness and despair. Instead, people will learn to work in harmony, they will feel they have made a fair wage and they will be happy - that just makes it better for all of us! Not all of us are cut out for higher education, but we Do need to educate all students on how to balance a checkbook, how to save money first - then buy, how to invest, about interest rates, etc. BEFORE THEY GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL. I would recommend starting in middle school. My dad was a steel worker, it took my husband and I forever to figure out how to handle money, and we are still learning to this day. If hadn't had friends who were good enough to explain how things work and guide us on how to manage our money, we would not be where we are today. Even kids that come from nothing should be taught about money - so they will grow up respecting it, understanding they need to work for it, and how to manage it when they get it! It's not fair that Americas richest kids get this taught to them at the dinner table. We need to make this information accessible and easy to understand in layman's terms.
Look, does anyone here honestly thing that the executives at Lehman had NO IDEA what was about to happen? Or that like the 1000 employees that are losing their jobs, they will end up going without a cent also? HELL NO! Those top executives will see a terrific downfall of cash, while the employees about to retire will see absolutely NOTHING.
*taking a deep breath*
*Stepping down from my soapbox*
*reminding everyone to hug their child or someone they love today* My son would have been fighting for Obama, and I will fight to the bitter end for him also!
GO OBAMA!
www.TaylorBurgstahler.memory-of.com
