We've dumbed ourselves down/money not the answer!

Ironically the States of Florida and Michigan have become the new "chad" problem for Democrats. For a Party that demanded all votes be counted the elimination of two entire states is quite iconoclastic. But then politics is not always logical or moral.(See 1 below.)

A soldier-journalist gives his view of reporting on the Gaza conflict and, once again, bias towards the IDF is indisputable. Arabs have learned well the art and effective use of propaganda to slant news their way. The press and media are either directionally and philosophically anti-Israel or are incapable of resisting manipulation. There are too many episodes of bias and subsequent revelations contradicting initial reports. (See 2 below.)

Charles Finn discusses, in a WSJ Op-editorial, the progress, or lack thereof, made in our education system since the report "A Nation at Risk" was issued 25 years ago.
Some progress has been made but we are falling behind in relation to the world and thus, increasingly at risk. Finn writes other nations are beginning to eat our lunch and the very survival of our competitive status is in doubt. He offers these suggestions to reverse the trend:

a) Don't expect or allow Uncle Sam to manage the reform process. DC Lacks the capacity, creativity and allowing Washington to intrude lets others off the hook.

b) Retain civilian control and push for more governor continuity.

c) Don't seek grand innovation. There are no silver bullets.

d) Content matters.

I have always maintained good education is simple and basic. It entails providing a safe and conducive environment, hiring qualified personnel capable of motivating and leaving them free to teach, a rigorous program of study, an ability to and support of throwing out incorrigbles and a reduction in stifling administrative demands. Anything beyond that is superfluous.

We go off track when we prevent competition, load up on administration and record keeping, and dumb down class curriculum. Turf battles protecting educators and making teaching students secondary is immoral and hypocritical.

I received a solid prep school education in an academic environment where discipline was enforced and core curriculum was emphasized. No gut courses! Money is not the problem it becomes the lame excuse for perpetuating failure.

We have far too many single parent families and far too many parents who do not care about education and/or understand its importance and can read. Far too many families do not provide a proper environment for learning, are themselves not good education roll models and make few demands their children learn. Consequently schools become the dumping ground for solving all our social ills. Schools are not up to the task and get kids too late even if they were.

The way we educate will only change after the problem gets worse and politicians can pull out that time worn "crisis" label but by then several generations will have been lost and America will be worse off because of it. Furthermore, crisis responses generally do not produce proper results. In fact, they generally worsen the problem.

If truth be told, we really don't care about education nationally, only individually.

Amos Harel makes the point that I have made many times - awarding Hamas for terrorism is dumb and could evoke more terrorism. Harel also points out that a cease fire agreement would strengthen Hamas' standing while downgrading Abbas' and Fatah.

Ironically the Palestinians present Israel with a two headed dog - one Fatah and Abbas, the other Hamas. This places Israel in both an awkward and conflictual position. Israel would love to achieve a true cease fire which would restore calm to Sderot and Ashkelon thereby providing its citizens with a semblance of normalcy. Hamas may not be able to deliver because various Palestinian factions may choose to continue their acts of terrorism notwithstanding and based on Hamas' purported terms it would be free to transfer their acts of terrorism to the West Bank. Certainly that would be uacceptable.

Second, as Harel points out, any agreement with Hamas undercuts Abbas and drives a further wedge between Fatah and Hamas, making it harder for Israel to achieve any ultimate satisfactory agreement. The schism that exists between Hamas and Fatah is equally destabilizing for the Palestinians, and worsens their own plight.(See 3 below.)

Assad speaks on Al Jazeera and denies Syria's nuclear goals in an interview of half-truths? (See 4 below.)

I have been told by a fellow memo reader that the movie "Where in The World is Osma Bin Laden" is very good and audiences are flocking to it when it is shown in their city.

1) Superdelegate Stalemate Shows No Sign of Easing
By LARRY ROHTER and CARL HULSE


Jeanne Lemire Dahlman, a Montana superdelegate and rancher, has declared her allegiance to Senator Barack Obama. But she said voters in her state, whose primary is June 3, are thrilled by the unresolved Democratic nominating fight, which gives them a potential voice in a nominating process that has usually bypassed them.


“A part of me would like to wrap this up,” she acknowledged. “But I think Senator Clinton should continue, unless she tanks in Indiana.”

The Pennsylvania primary was supposed to help clarify the picture for the 795 Democratic superdelegates, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s strong victory there on Tuesday has in many ways complicated matters for them, furthering a stalemate that has deeply divided the party even as top Democrats called this week for them to make up their minds by June.

The latest New York Times survey of superdelegates — the party leaders and elected officials who essentially have the power to determine the nominee — finds that Mrs. Clinton holds a 16-person edge that slices into Mr. Obama’s overall lead in delegates. And those 478 superdelegates who have declared their allegiances show no signs of switching sides as the primary calendar proceeds toward its June 3 ending.

Donald L. Fowler is a South Carolina superdelegate who supports Mrs. Clinton. His wife, Carol, is a superdelegate too, but she supports Mr. Obama. Needless to say, they have very different views of how the party should proceed in light of Mrs. Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory.

“It’s sort of like what you would have heard at the Super Bowl at the end of the third quarter,” Mr. Fowler said. “Patriot fans are anxious and optimistic, and Giant fans are hopeful and a little bit more anxious. But the game is not over.”

He said Clinton supporters like him “are encouraged” by the Pennsylvania results, “but we’re not naïve.” He added: “We’re still behind and we’ve got a lot to do to catch up. She’s playing games now where she has to win them all.”

Ms. Fowler, who is chairwoman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, said that once the primaries were over, she would like to see a prompt resolution. “I’ve been in politics long enough to know that when you get close to the end, people get cranky with each other,” she said. “But I believe that won’t continue forever. People will find that the wounds are not so deep they can’t be healed.”

As with previous contests, Pennsylvania did little to change the math in terms of superdelegates. In interviews, superdelegates supporting Mrs. Clinton seized on the results to push for the contest to continue, while Obama backers often focused on the need for party unity. And some expressed trepidation about their newfound power.

One superdelegate, David E. Price, was a member of the Hunt Commission, which created the superdelegate system in the early 1980s. Now a representative from North Carolina who has endorsed Senator Obama, Mr. Price says he notices “a certain deterioration out there of the climate, but I don’t want to exaggerate that.” Because the views of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are so close on most issues, “it is tempting to pick each other’s words apart and concentrate on lesser matters,” he said. “That does become irritating and wear on voters. But we will get past it.”

What appears to worry him more is the idea, advanced by some of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers and supporters, that the superdelegates have the authority to be the final arbiters in the Clinton-Obama race. He said the superdelegates should intervene only in extraordinary circumstances that do not now exist.

“The fact is that the unpledged delegate group was added not to be kingmakers or queenmakers but simply to give each state a few extra slots without having to sign in blood for a presidential candidate or run against their own constituents,” he said. “I don’t think anyone thought this would be the decisive voting bloc, let alone overturn a popular verdict.”

The biggest well of superdelegates is in Congress. There, Democrats in the House and the Senate seemed resigned to the likelihood that the nominating contest would stretch on at least to June.

They sought to play down the potential damage to the party of an extended nominating fight. And they emphasized the enthusiasm shown by voters and said they believed that Democrats fervently committed to one or the other candidate would rally to the eventual nominee once the contrast is shown between any Democrat and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee.

Yet there was a clear sentiment that the rest of the Democratic campaign and the way it is resolved would be crucial. “The way the loser loses,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is close to both candidates but has made no endorsement, “will determine whether the winner wins in November.”

The Democrats’ national chairman, Howard Dean, told The Financial Times in an article on Friday: “I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.”
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
A Shrinking Advantage in Superdelegates
A Shrinking Advantage in Superdelegates
Related
Interactive Interactive Graphic: Where Superdelegates Stand
Blog
The Caucus

The CaucusThe latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

* Candidate Topic Pages

* More Politics News

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, another publicly neutral superdelegate, said the nominating contest would take care of itself. “I still say it will never get to the superdelegates,” said Mr. Harkin, who once ran for president himself. “Within 10 days of the last primary, one or the other will drop out.”

Mr. Harkin was among those who were skeptical of the claim that disheartened supporters of Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton would abandon the party if their choice lost and possibly back Mr. McCain. “That’s now,” Mr. Harkin said. “Two months later, three months later, of course they are all going to be on board. Emotions run high in primaries, but time heals all wounds and political wounds tend to heal faster.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a strong backer of Mr. Obama, said she believed the thousands of new voters being drawn into the primary process would coalesce around the Democratic nominee once the candidates and the party begin to define Mr. McCain better on issues like the war and the economy.

“I think that will turn the tide for the people who are going in that direction,” she said of those saying they could abandon the winner. “We have a job to do, and shame on us if we don’t create that definition,” she said of the distinctions between the Democratic nominee and Mr. McCain.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, another Obama backer, also noted the enthusiasm, particularly among young voters, that he had witnessed when campaigning for Mr. Obama. He said that zeal should end up being “enormously constructive and valuable and helpful.”

Representative John Tanner of Tennessee gave Mrs. Clinton his superdelegate support on Wednesday after Pennsylvania, but he said the current economic and political climate would seem to favor either Democrat over Mr. McCain in November.

“But I think she presents the most pragmatic view of our problems,” he said. “You can talk all you want, have all the rhetoric you want about how it ought to be, but we have got to have somebody who is a pragmatist: What is possible? How is it possible to reverse the financial ruination occurring before our very eyes?”

Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, who has announced no preference in the race so far, said he believed the contest was only strengthening the nominee.

“I would prefer the issue be resolved so we had a nominee and not give John McCain the opportunity to put together his base,” Mr. Waxman said. “But I think our nominee will be stronger as the result of this fight.”

2) Between the Lines: 'The first casualty of war is the truth'
By Calev Ben-David

On April 16, Palestinian cameraman Fadel Shana, 23, in the employ of the Reuters news agency, was killed while filming a clash between the IDF and Hamas gunmen in Gaza.

According to Palestinian sources, Shana died as the result of being hit by a flechette shell - which, upon detonation, releases small, dart-like projectiles over a wide area - fired near his position by a tank. Two Gazan teenagers were killed along with him; his soundman was wounded; and three more bystanders reportedly later died of their wounds.

A mere two days after the incident, Human Rights Watch (HRW), a non-governmental organization often critical of Israeli policy and actions, claimed that its "investigation" determined IDF soldiers had acted recklessly - perhaps even deliberately - in firing near the Reuters crew. (How it could possibly investigate this so quickly, without even speaking to the soldiers involved, is beyond me, but this is all too typical of HRW's methodology.)

Pressed by Reuters and other organizations, the IDF subsequently announced it was conducting its own inquiry into the incident.

Palestinian journalists held a protest march in Ramallah last Sunday calling for an independent investigation.

Before we go any further in discussing this matter, some points clearly need to be stated. The death of any civilian in this conflict is a human tragedy, and of any journalist killed in the line of duty a professional one, as well. The authorities need to investigate this incident as thoroughly and impartially as possible, and if the soldiers or commanders involved acted in an improper or reckless manner, they should be accordingly punished and the survivors duly compensated. These points are incontrovertible.

But some other points need to be made, as well. Gaza - all of it - is a war zone. This is not Israel's doing, but of its Hamas rulers, who have chosen to use every inch of it as a staging ground for indiscriminate terrorist acts specifically aimed at Israeli civilians.

The death of Shana came on a day of fierce gunfights in this part of Gaza, begun earlier when IDF forces detected Hamas gunmen attempting to penetrate the border fence, and moved in to intercept them - with the result being the death of three soldiers, a fact that several subsequent media accounts of the incident have failed to mention.

Almost all of the articles do mention that Shana was wearing a vest marked "Press," as was his vehicle parked next to him - one of the reasons HRW claims his death may have been deliberate. As it turns out, Shana actually succeeded in filming the tank as it fired near his position right before he was killed. In the frames of that footage available on the Internet, it is not easy to make out any of the details of the tank, which reportedly was some 1.5 kilometers away. Thus, it would certainly have been difficult for the tank crew to make out "Press" markings from that distance with the naked eye.

But even if they had, there is no guarantee they would have held their fire if they believed there was Palestinian shooting emanating from that particular area. And unfortunately, Gazan terrorists have also utilized vehicles disguised with "Press" markings, including in an attempted car-bombing attack on a border position last June.

Much coverage of the incident focused on the IDF's use of a flechette shell, quoting the NGO B'tselem, another frequent critic of Israeli policy, that use of the weapon was "potentially illegal," given the conditions in Gaza. In a 2003 case on the IDF's use of the shell brought before the High Court of Justice, the court found that no nation in the world, or recognized body of international law, bans the use of flechettes. (Maybe they should, but it's only the IDF's use of it that is especially singled out.) As to why anyone would use such a particular weapon, its advantage is that it can penetrate tree cover more effectively than normal shells - and terrorist gangs in northern Gaza use the groves there as cover for rocket and sniper attacks.

That, of course, doesn't mean that its use was appropriate in this case. The IDF, fighting its enemies in difficult conditions, does sometimes make the same terrible errors that other armies do in similar circumstances.

Just this week it was reported that Israel is weighing a multi-million dollar compensation payment to the family of James Miller, a British documentary filmmaker shot by a soldier in Rafah five years ago. It would be false, though, to claim that in every case in which a journalist was injured or killed by IDF fire, Israel has always responded adequately; all military organizations, even in democracies, look first to protect their own soldiers.

I also can't claim to be objective in these matters, having both served as a soldier in Gaza and worked there as a journalist. But I do think my position is at least more honest than that of some of my colleagues, who claim a mantle of impartiality on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which I know they do not always wear.

The most oft-quoted remark about war reporting is, "The first casualty of war is the truth."

That certainly is the case with the situation in Gaza, where the international media often fails to present the conflict in the proper context to adequately explain why Hamas and other Islamic terror groups bear primary responsibility for the civilian deaths there.

But sometimes the casualties of war are just that, including when they are journalists. So let us mourn the death of Fadel Shana, who died bravely on the job, and hope the truth does come out in this case.

3) ANALYSIS: Cease-fire with Hamas would make PA irrelevant
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' statement Friday in Washington that he had failed to move ahead negotiations with Israel after talks with President George W. Bush reveals how anxious the Fatah leadership is over a possible cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which would make the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank almost irrelevant.

While no apparent progress has been made between Israel and the PA on the final-status agreement, Hamas will have one of the most significant victories in its history, if not the most significant.

Palestinian public opinion may see the agreement, which lifts the blockade in exchange for a cessation of hostilities, as proof that only attacks and Qassam rockets can wrest concessions from Israel.

Palestinian and Egyptian sources say the cease-fire will initially apply to the Gaza Strip only, but six months later, if quiet prevails, it will expand to the West Bank, something the PA has failed to do for seven and a half years. Under those circumstances, who needs Abbas - they might really be able to start packing at the Muqata.

Hamas is also demanding that during the cease-fire in Gaza, Israel does not respond militarily there to attacks in the West Bank or within the Green Line. This is a stumbling block for Israel, which is concerned that the agreement will increase Hamas' motivation to carry out attacks in the West Bank.

Another weakness in the agreement is that it apparently does not include the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

The head of Hamas' political wing in Damascus, Khaled Meshal, took pains yesterday in Qatar to explain that Hamas is not keen for the cease-fire to happen. But in reality, Hamas is very interested, so the economic blockade can be lifted and its position strengthened.

If Hamas fails this week in Cairo to persuade the other groups in Gaza to join it, its dilemma will be whether to restrain Islamic Jihad, or risk the collapse of the understandings with Egypt and Israel.

Without the other groups on board, Israel will discount the agreement. The murder Friday of two Israelis at the Nitzanei Shalom industrial zone near Tul Karm might be the first of a wave of terror by Islamic Jihad and other groups hoping to disrupt the calm in the Strip.


4)Analysis: Assad’s one half-truth and three lies to al Watan



In an interview Sunday, April 27 with the Qatari daily al Watan , Syrian president Bashar Assad said: "We don’t want a nuclear bomb, even if Iran acquires one. Military sources say that was only half true.

What he omitted to mention was the division of labor agreed between Damascus and Tehran in a potential war against Israel: The Syrian reactor Israel destroyed last September would produce “dirty weapons,” while Iran would go for a nuclear bomb. Tehran therefore funded the North Korean reactor in Syria. The radiological weapons made there were to be distributed to the terrorist organizations fighting Israel and used as leverage to control them.

“How would we use it? And where? No nuclear bomb has been used since World War II,” the Syrian ruler protested in the interview - three days after intelligence of his plutonium reactor weeks away from operation was presented to US congressmen in Washington.

Our military sources stress that a single radiological bomb released by just one terrorist group against a major Israeli city would have been an existential threat to the Jewish state.

Assad’s first outright lie was his insistence that future Middle East wars would be conventional. Sources point out Syria and Iran have recently supplied the Lebanese Hizballah with surface missiles capable of carrying chemical warheads. And Syria’s own air defenses are composed of Scud C and D missiles able to deliver chemical and biological weapons.

His second lie was the site Israel raided last year was no nuclear site but a military facility under construction. To prove his point, he asked: “Does it make sense that we would build a nuclear facility in the desert and not protect it with anti-aircraft defenses?”

The deployment of air defenses batteries, especially in a desolate corner of the Syrian Desert would have attracted immediate attention and betrayed its presence - even before the top-secret facility was functioning.

Assad’s third lie was the real point of the al Watan interview, although the least obvious: The Syrian ruler, according to intelligence sources, decided last week to bury the results of the inquiry into the death of Hizballah commander Imad Mughniyeh in February. That report accused Saudi undercover agencies of involvement in the murder together with the Israeli Mossad.

Saudi ire forced Assad to back away from this allegation. This he did in the interview when he declared that “no Arab hand” was found to have taken part in the Mughniyeh slaying.

The interview was therefore aimed more at placating Riyadh than highlighting the Syrian ruler’s issues with Israel.