And we're supposed to feel sorry for the lady here taken into detention?
And the mainstream press continues to make Arizona the bad guy. At LAT, "Arizona was once tolerant of illegal immigrants. What happened?", and NYT, "The Hunt for American Decency in the Arizona Quicksand."
President Obama's speech on Iraq was a disappointment. Not a surprise, but a disappointment.
It was disappointing because it was yet another missed opportunity. He could have shown real statesmanship by acknowledging he was wrong about the surge. He could have reached across the aisle and credited Republicans who backed the policy he vigorously opposed and tried to thwart, a policy that has made it possible (but by no means certain) to hope for a responsible end to the Iraq war. He could have have told the truth about his Iraq strategy, that what he has pursued thus far has not been what he was arguing for in the campaign -- that would have involved the departure of all U.S. troops by mid 2008 -- but rather he has followed, in a more or less desultory fashion, a script written in the status of forces agreement negotiated by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki.
Instead of giving such a speech, Obama gave a campaign address trying to claim credit for anything that is going well in Iraq and trying to avoid blame for anything that is going poorly. That may be shrewd campaign politics, but it is not the statesmanship the occasion warranted. The commander-in-chief missed an opportunity, and I worry that it will come back to haunt us ....
The truth is that Obama is running out of pages in the Bush playbook on Iraq and so increasingly it will fall to Obama to forge his own Iraq policy. Once the playbook is entirely his, he will bear full responsibility for the consequences. The only real change he made to the Iraq playbook he inherited was to signal to the Iraqi leaders that he was, in Charles Krauthammer's words, "washing his hands of Iraq." Where President Bush signaled a commitment to succeed regardless of the political cost, President Obama has signaled, perhaps unintentionally, a commitment to abandon Iraq regardless of the national security costs.
It is a commitment I don't think he can really stick to unless the Bush surge really has produced irreversible progress in Iraq -- something that no Bush alum would ever claim. If Iraq spirals into chaos, Obama will encounter the very same national interest calculation Bush encountered: What happens in Iraq matters greatly for U.S. national security, even more than what happens in Afghanistan (this is why Bush prioritized Iraq over Afghanistan in 2006-2008 when both were in trouble).
Adverse developments in Iraq will be (and will look to be) increasingly a function of the Obama Team taking their eye off of the ball and rushing to declare mission accomplished. Yes, in such a scenario the Iraqis should bear most of the blame, but the part that is due to U.S. action or inaction will be Obama's responsibility. And it will matter. Iraq is at the center of a region that every president since Jimmy Carter has identified as vital to our national security. Iraq is next door to, and the playground for mischief from, the most thorny national security challenge the United States faces: a nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian regime. These inconvenient facts mean that if the Iraqi situation demands more focused and costly U.S. attention, it will likely get it. At that point, what sort of domestic coalition will be available for President Obama's Iraq policy?
Hat Tip: Sean Hackbarth.
"Another of our country's children, giving his life for our freedom from terrorism. God bless you, soldier, thank you for your ultimate sacrifice. You will never be forgotten." --- From the comments at the Orange County Register.The photo shows U.S. Marine Michael Chang grieving at the memorial for his best friend, Army Sgt. Daniel Lim. The Orange County Register has the front-page story and slideshow, "O.C. soldier's love for family and friends ran deep." A picture of Chang is also on the front-page of the hardcopy edition of today's Wall Street Journal. Looking at the images from the Sgt. Lim ceremonies, can we really believe the war was a mistake? Have the lives of those who've sacrificed been for naught? I don't believe so. But at almost 9 years, the war in Afghanistan may be stretching the limits of America's patience.
The partisan political splits have been longstanding. The Democratic Party used the war for cheap political purposes during the Bush administration. Democrats argued that America was fighting the wrong war in Iraq, that Afghanistan was the "good war" in the post-9/11 era. But as soon as it looked like the U.S. has secured a lasting stability --- if not all-out victory --- in Iraq, the Democrats' political calculus turned to antiwar mobilization against the Afghanistan deployment. Sober analysts are correct to contrast and justify the commitment of U.S. resources with the war aims in Afghanistan. They've suggested that U.S. goals have not always been well-defined and that nation-building seems supported more by U.S. contingents on the ground than the Afghan political officials being propped up by American power. Then you have the neo-communist leftists, who have two political cards against the modern capitalist system: "racism" and "neo-imperialism." Some of these folks have in fact given direct support to our enemies, treasonous behavior that sadly reaches to the Obama administration itself. Not far behind the left are the "realist" paleocons, who for my money are not much better than the neo-communists in their wild conspiracies of alleged U.S. neo-colonial adventures. Such talk ultimately aids and abets our enemies. It places such a narrow desideratum on our interests that basically the U.S. would never intervene abroad unless a couple of our largest cities were incinerated by nuclear mushroom clouds.
In any case, I'm prompted to this discussion by today's front-page report at USA Today, "Poll: Waning Support for Obama On Wars," and more specifically, the Gallup Poll behind it, "In U.S., New High of 43% Call Afghanistan War a 'Mistake'." Ed Morrissey focuses on the political angle, and the likihood the USA Today buried the lede on Obama's collapsing numbers. That's important, although it's the Gallup entry that's more interesting to me, since the poll cites WikiLeaks as a reason for the declining support:
After the Internet publication of tens of thousands of leaked classified documents on the war in Afghanistan, 43% of Americans now say the United States made a mistake in sending troops there, up slightly from just before the release (38%). While Americans are still more likely to support than oppose the war, the percentage who say it was a mistake to get involved is at a new high ....
The 43% of Americans calling the decision to send U.S. military forces into Afghanistan a mistake marks the high point in the nearly nine-year war, although a slight majority continue to support the decision. Public support persists even though for most of the last several years Americans have generally thought the war has been going badly for the United States, and many more currently disapprove than approve of President Obama's handling of the situation.
Thus, the leaking of the documents may not be providing new information to the general public about the progress of the war. And given Americans' subdued attention to the story, it's also not clear that Americans are highly familiar with what information those documents reveal.
But the documents do remind Americans of the challenges the United States is facing in Afghanistan, and they may have caused an increasing number to question whether the efforts there are worth it. Last week, Congress approved President Obama's request for continued funding of the war, though by a narrower margin than last year.
That sounds like a decent assessment. I'd simply add that most MSM outlets are in the tank for WikiLeaks, and this despite the fact that Julian Assange is almost certainly running a criminal enterprise. I think at this point the U.S. is now to a point of winding down the Bush-era wars. President Obama has never embraced them as his own. Of course he campaigned vociferously against Iraq in 2007-08 and is today claiming credit for victory there; and on Afghanistan he's been at most lukewarm in his support, while some of his decision-making has in fact put U.S. troops in greater danger. But there's more to the WikiLeaks story than meets the eye. American interests remain great in Afghanistan. Despite the increasing drumbeats for a precipitous withdrawal, AfPAK will remain a top global security threat for years to come. We'd be foolish to cut and run. On that score, I'll give the last word to Thomas Jocelyn at Weekly Standard. See, "The Taliban's Savagery: The Documents Released by WikiLeaks Say Much About the Evil of Our Enemies":
When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the massive leak of more than 90,000 classified documents, he claimed that he was exposing “thousands” of possible American war crimes. The documents show nothing of the sort. Some of the documents do detail the brutality of war, and the unsurprising fact that mistakes are made. Assange’s anti-American myopia prevented him from seeing what the documents really demonstrate: American-led forces face an especially savage enemy.
Of course, we didn’t need the WikiLeaks cache of documents to tell us this. There is plenty of evidence for the whole world to see. Still, the documents demonstrate just how pervasive the Taliban’s brutality is in this fight. The Taliban and its jihadist allies have an unparalleled lust for blood, beheading their enemies (both real and imagined) on a regular basis. It is difficult to think of a more savage act.
Here are just some examples, chosen from many, found in the documents released by WikiLeaks ....
RTWT.
At Israel Matzav, "Why There Shouldn't Be a Mosque at Ground Zero."
More on Flight 175 here.
RELATED: "'WE HAVE SOME PLANES'."
BREAKING: Dan Senor, at WSJ, "An Open Letter on the Ground Zero Mosque" (via Memeorandum):
Our deeper concern is what effect Cordoba House would have on the families of 9/11 victims, survivors of and first responders to the attacks, New Yorkers in general, and all Americans. As you have seen in the public reaction to the Cordoba House, 9/11 remains a deep wound for Americans—especially those who experienced it directly in some way. They understandably see the area as sacred ground. Nearly all of them also reject the equation of Islam with terrorism and do not blame the attacks on Muslims generally or on the Muslim faith. But many believe that Ground Zero should be reserved for memorials to the event itself and to its victims. They do not understand why of all possible locations in the city, Cordoba House must be sited so near to there.
And the contrary opinion from Wordsmith at Flopping Aces, "Refudiating the Islamophobes." And Jennifer Rubin, "The Left Defends Ground Zero Mosque."
HAT TIP: Snark and Boobs.
Apparently, Pam Geller wrote a book and someone actually reviewed it. I'm not sure which is more disturbing. Here's an idea. I promise to write a book about how right-wing lunatics are destroying the fabric of our country. I can do this with facts and citations or, if you prefer, I can just accuse them all of committing acts of bestiality, ritual Satanism, and drinking the blood of gentile babies. It's really up to the publisher. Whatever they want, I can supply. Making stuff up is easier though, so if you want the manuscript in time for a Christmas roll out, I advise we go with some bestiality. Just let me know and I'll get right to work.The reference to the book review is for Elon Green at the communist webzine AlterNet, "Why Is Simon & Schuster Spreading the Wild Conspiracy Theories of an Unhinged Islamophobic Blogger?" Check the link. Nowhere does Elon Green actually engage the arguments in Pamela Geller's book. The "review" is frankly nothing more than a diatribe against the right-wing. What BooMan does is take it to the next step in leftist demonology, anti-Semitic blood libel. Sure, the post is formed as a hypothetical. BooMan suggests that he "can just accuse them all of committing acts of bestiality, ritual Satanism, and drinking the blood of gentile babies."
Did they use ink, or the dripping blood of the Muslim babies she was eating at the time?The blog post and comment were posted earlier this evening, and there's a new post at top (excoriating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio). No one seems to object to this blood libel. In fact, looking at post after post after post of Booman Tribune, it's practically one long hit list against conservatives and Republicans. There is a lot of hatred there, and these are people who are already in power.
Since its emergence in the waning days of World War II, the international civil aviation system has served as an engine of progress and prosperity -- both in the United States and in many nations around the world ....More at the link.
But the international aviation system has its weak links, as illustrated by the attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound flight on December 25, 2009.
Although that incident involved a U.S. plane flying into a U.S. city, it was an international terror plot that endangered individuals from at least 17 foreign countries. The alleged attacker, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was a Nigerian citizen educated in the United Kingdom. He received training in terrorist tactics in Yemen, purchased his ticket in Ghana, and flew from Nigeria to Amsterdam before departing for Detroit. In other words, the Christmas Day plot exploited the global aviation network -- and it underscored the reality that, despite decades of advances in screening and significant reforms following 9/11, the network still faces vulnerabilities.
Aviation security, much like other international security challenges, blurs the line between foreign and domestic. Because every airport offers a potential entry point into the global system, every nation faces the threat from gaps in aviation security throughout the world.
The international dimensions of the attempted terrorist attack on December 25 brought new urgency to the need for an international reform agenda. And over the last six months, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has worked with international partners on an unprecedented campaign to strengthen the international aviation system against the evolving threats posed by terrorism.
RELATED: "Terrorist Threat On Border With Mexico."
PHOTOSHOP CREDIT: Another Black Conservative.
Remember, this is the face of today's Democratic Party, whose leaders would have given up on World War II in 1942. Disgraceful.
Lady Gaga loudly contested Arizona's controversial new immigration law SB 1070 during her Monster Ball tour stop in Phoenix Saturday night. With "Stop SB 1070" written prominently on her left forearm, Gaga told the approving crowd, "Tonight, I want you to reject any person or any thing or any law that has made you feel like you don't belong. I got a phone call from a couple really big rock and rollers, big pop stars, big rappers, and they said, 'We'd like you to boycott Arizona because of SB 1070.' And I said, 'Do you really think that us dumb fucking pop stars are going to collapse the economy of Arizona?'"Related: At The Other McCain, "Stupid Things Lady Gaga Says."
Instead of avoiding the state, Lady Gaga said she wanted to take the fight straight to the heart of Arizona. "I'll tell you what we have to do about SB 1070: We have to be active," she said. "We have to protest... I will not cancel my show. I will yell and I will scream louder and I will hold you, and we will hold each other, and we will peaceably protest this state. Because if it wasn't for all you immigrants, this country wouldn't have shit."
To, to those of us who were already punk rockers, Billy was a difficult subject to tackle. We could all agree that Rebel Yell, Eyes Without a Face and all that shit sucked. Billy was a very blatant case of “selling out”. But some of us, if we were honest with oursleves [sic], thought the White Wedding video was pretty cool and even though we thought Billy Idol was a tool, it was hard not to love the early Generation X tracks. I heard the band the first time on Burning Ambitions which as long time readers know, was my introduction to punk, playing the A-Side of this single and it stood equally alongside other class of 77′ acts like Wire, ATV and X- Ray Spex. Your Generation is like a glam version of The Ramones which is probably exactly what they were going for. It is an amazingly cool punk rock track and the B-Side is no slouch either. It’s all freakin’ cotton candy for the ears.Actually, I have no need to prove how punk I am by dissing Idol's later tracks. By the early '80s it had been two or three years of non-stop gigs, seeing every band under the sun, U.S. and U.K. A couple of buddies started successful outfits of their own, and my best friend had shifted to rockabilly, at one point opening for acts like Stevie Ray Vaughn. In L.A. you just kinda went with the flow. Idol was cool because we liked punkers who made it big. Sure, not "selling out" is authentic, but even John Lydon cultivated his "public image" (and has more recently become a product pitchman). Besides, Steve Jones cut a few tracks on "Gen X," so you just get the real feel of what it was like back then even when Idol was going disco. Fun stuff.
And don't forget about Palin's new book: America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.
RELATED: At The Blog Prof, "Video of Bill Kristol: These Democrats 'Would Have Given Up on WWII in 1942'."
The whole notion of marijuana at dispensaries being sold for strictly "medical" purposes has long been a sham.Check out Pastor Ron Allen of Sacramento at the video — he suggests this is an ultimate tragedy in a city with murder rates among the highest in the nation. Unbelievable, really. But that's what the nihilist left wants in today's America.
True, there are many seriously ill people who benefit from smoking marijuana. A friend who passed away from brain cancer five years ago smoked the drug to help boost his appetite after chemo treatments made him nauseous.
He was an eligible candidate for a medical marijuana card.
Yet it's also true that pretty much anyone and their mother can qualify for a medical marijuana prescription in California.
You can get a medical card if you have insomnia or mood swings. Who doesn't?
There are so many conditions that make you eligible, a de facto state of legalization pretty much already exists.
For those who don't want to go through the motions of obtaining a card, there are plenty of "medical" growers with flourishing pot-sale businesses catering to recreational uses on the side.
Those who support legalization say that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol.
They say it's unfair to criminalize pot while allowing the legal sale of booze.
Prop. 19 supporters argue that both marijuana and alcohol should be regulated and taxed.
California NAACP President Alice Huffman came out in support of the measure. She said legalizing marijuana for recreational use would reduce the number of young black men in jail for marijuana-related offenses. Out of some 1,500 people in California prisons on marijuana charges, half are black.
Yet judging from the firestorm that Huffman's comments have created, there is a huge gulf between those who believe Prop. 19 will lead to more widespread use of marijuana and those who argue that the war on drugs has been a costly failure.
A coalition of black pastors is actively campaigning against Prop. 19.
They aren't moved by the argument that it would reduce the numbers of black men disproportionately incarcerated on marijuana possession charges.
They see marijuana as a scourge in their communities, an addictive substance that often leads to harder drug use. Sacramento pastor Ron Allen says he was on crack cocaine for 11 years. He said marijuana started him on the road to drug addiction.
There is no question that marijuana is an addictive drug. I know people whose brains are totally fried from decades of marijuana abuse.
Yet I also know people who use marijuana recreationally.
They aren't any more likely to become addicts than those who drink responsibly are to develop cirrhosis.
It's time we had an open and honest debate on the issue before voters go to the polls in November.
Captain, I share your feelings on a very personal level. My home state of North Carolina had a 300% increase in its Hispanic population as of the 2000 census. I expect that when all the 2010 numbers are in there will be another substantial increase. As the Hispanic population has increased, so has the bigotry against them. What I was not prepared for and still cannot fathom is the strength of African-American prejudice against Hispanics. Far too many of my people make the same bigoted commentary and enact the same disgraceful racism against Hispanics that we ourselves have suffered. For years, there has been a coalition of Blacks and Hispanics working together to combat this divide so all is not hopeless but I feel shame and frustration that such bias even exists. Being oppressed does not teach one to refrain from becoming an oppressor. This is one of the most dificult [sic] truths that I have had to face. It fills me with despair. If those who have sufferd [sic] the lash are willing to become wielders of the lash, then what hope is there for humankind?Blacks vote Democrat overwhelming, ergo, Democrats as "wielders of the lash"? Oh, the humanity!
"Open Your Eyes" (The Lords of the New Church:).Video games train the kids for war.
Army chic in high-fashion stores.
Law and order's done their job.
Prisons filled while the rich still rob.
Assassination politics.
Violence rules within' our nation's midst.
Well ignorance is their power tool.
You'll only know what they want you to know.
The television cannot lie.
Controlling media with smokescreen eyes.
Nuclear politicians picture show.
The acting's lousy but the blind don't know.
They scare us all with threats of war.
So we forget just how bad things are.
You taste the fear when you're all alone.
They gonna git'cha when you're on your own.
The silence of conspiracy.
Slaughtered on the altar of apathy.
You gotta wake up from your sleep.
'Cause meek inherits earth...six feet deep.
Open your eyes see the lies right in front of ya.
Open your eyes.....
Canada’s misguided experiment with multiculturalism pretends that all cultural ideas are equal, and Canadian values, such as the equality of men and women, are no better than foreign values like the subjugation of women.Or, you could board a plane, completely covered!
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982 when our Muslim population was tiny, is contradictory.
Section 27 of the Charter calls for “the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”
But Section 28 says that rights “are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”
Well, which is it? “Enhancing” Saudi values? Or guaranteeing women’s equality?
Because you can’t have both.
Margaret Atwood published her sci-fi novel The Handmaid’s Tale, about America being taken over by a Christian theocracy that treats women as sexual property, 25 years ago.
It has become trite to watch cultural liberals like Atwood bravely attack imaginary discrimination, while staying silent on real discrimination.
The Handmaid’s Tale won Atwood the Governor General’s Award for fiction. A book about the subjugation of women in radical Islam would win Atwood a death threat.
Atwood loves posing as a feminist at champagne receptions in her honour. But she’ll leave the heavy lifting to people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
She’s the Somali refugee who wrote and narrated a movie called Submission, about the place of women in radical Islam.
The film’s producer, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered for it, but a note pinned with a knife into his body referred primarily to Hirsi Ali, who has had to live under around-the-clock security ever since.
That’s all a bit too real for Atwood, and is the reason why other feminists like the once-noisy Judy Rebick are so meek and gentle with the real butchers of women’s rights.
So, should the burka be banned?
It’s anathema for a free country like Canada to tell citizens how to dress.
The same liberty that allows the rest of us to dress as we like is the liberty that allows a woman to hide her face.
But what about in a bank?
Should masked women, Muslim or not, be allowed into a bank? If that’s okay, how about a man in a ski mask?
How about testifying in court?
Who else can hide their eyes and facial expressions while condemning an accused or swearing to their own innocence?
And why stop at witnesses — what about judges or police officers in a burka?
What about ID cards like a driver’s licence?
What point is an ID card if it doesn’t actually ID you?
Grant Bowler is new to me, since I'm not a "Lost" fan, or whatever. And that's better. I'd hate to have Brad Pitt star (for example) and then while watching the movie have flashbacks to "Fight Club" or "Seven." Basically, it makes for a clean slate with a fresh star.
You may have heard about the Palestinian BDS movement. The letters in their acronym stand for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction. They really ought to add another D for Destroy. Their goal—and they aren’t shy about saying so publicly even in English—isn’t peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which is what all civilized people should want, but the end of Israel.
Take a look at the video and see for yourself.
HAT TIP: Instapundit.
"There really are two Americas: the Democrat ruling class and everyone else."I for one (as well as my wife) don't begrudge the Clintons for having a smash-bang wedding with lavish no-holds barred accomodations, luxuries, etc. This is America. It's what we do. But I don't see any effort by the Clintons at moderation, a point that Mrs. Ross points out at the post:
"These people are such f***ing hypocrites it makes me sick to my stomach."It seems hypocritical, but again, who's to complain? That said, I am fascinated by the contrast with Jenna Bush's marriage in summer 2008. There's an article at New York Times, "Jenna Bush Has Wedding at Ranch in Crawford." The Bush family spent $100,000. No matter (I think my father-in-law spent under $10,000 when I married my wife). That said, iOWNTHEWORLD offers an observation:
I never saw pictures of Jenna’s wedding before. Did you notice that the racists had a black minister??? Wow. How did that guy get in there?
AND NO-JOKE DOUBLE BONUS: "Why the Clintons, not the Bushes, are the new royal family."
What has become of conservatism? We have reached a point at which nothing could be more important than to stop and recall what brought us here, to the right, in the first place.RTWT.
Buckley's National Review, where I was the literary editor through the 1990s, remains as vital and interesting as ever. But more characteristic of conservative leadership are figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of "neocons" versus "paleocons." Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons.
Looks like the Clinton family was rockin' the Hudson River yesterday, by the way. Chelsea's ceremony was estimated at between $3 million and $5 million, quite a bit more than what the Bush family spent for Jenna's wedding. Ruby Slippers has more on that, "Fireworks, $250,000 in Jewelry, and a Vegan Cake - Oh My."
... at 58, he sees no reason to divorce. Their children have grown and left home. He asked himself: Why bring in a bunch of lawyers? Why create rancor when there’s nowhere to go but down?And check this out:
“To tie a bow around it would only make it uglier,” Mr. Frost said. “When people ask about my relationship status, I usually just say: ‘It’s complicated. I like my wife, I just can’t live with her.’ ”
One woman, a 39-year-old mother of two from Brooklyn, who like many interviewed for this article wished to remain anonymous, has stayed separated for nearly two years at the suggestion of five lawyers.Man, that'd be rough if my wife left me for another ... woman?
“There’s no advantage to getting divorced,” she said. Both she and her husband are in new relationships. Most people assume they’ve officially split. But given the health insurance issue and the prospect of legal fees, she said, “I feel like we could just drift on like this for years.”
Not being divorced is also an excuse not to remarry.
“In my day, we’d refer to a man as a bon vivant, a gadabout who doesn’t want to worry about marrying anyone else because he’s already married,” said Sheila Riesel, a New York divorce lawyer for more than three decades.
In the end, some people just don’t want to divorce. Perhaps one spouse desires it and the other drags his or her feet. Sometimes, people are just confused; separation can be a wake-up call.
In other cases, initiating divorce ultimately serves that purpose. Last year, a 67-year-old professor in New York filed for divorce from the man she married in 1969 and separated from in 1988 after she had an affair with a woman.
“I had images of Vita Sackville-West, but it was very messy and the children suffered a lot,” she recalled. “My husband had been more attached to me than I thought.”
And she considered him a pal; they even took vacations together. “I think I liked that we were still married in some way,” she admitted. “But last year I met someone who minds that I’m still married to someone else.”
And thus, time to divorce. Call it an old-fashioned romance.
And how about that "my husband was more attached to me than I thought"? Amanda Marcotte could go a mile with that one, LOL!
Via Memeorandum.
A year after President Barack Obama's political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 - 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.But who's it gonna be?
Hat Tip: Linkmaster Smith.
Starting this fall, Mount Olive Middle and High School students will have to work harder to earn a passing grade.One thing that always bugs me is when students at my college are happy to get a "D". They'll continue to get financial aid, which is more of an immediate interest than the longer-term goal of a high GPA.
The Mount Olive school board voted 8-1 Monday night to eliminate the “D” grade in the middle and high school grading systems.
Last month, Superintendent Larrie Reynolds proposed the policy as a way to encourage students to learn — not just earn credits, Reynolds said.
“I’m tired of kids coming to school and not learning and getting credit for it,” he said. “We intend to be the beacon of excellence in Morris County, and to do that, we have to fix it.”
Currently, anything under a 65 is considered failing. The new policy, which is expected to be in effect by September, would raise the failure score to anything under a 70.
