Jolene Byrne Responds! Going To War Better Than Waiting For War! What Me Worry President!

Q: Why did Adam and Eve have a perfect marriage? A: He didn't have to hear about all the men she could have married, and she didn't have to hear about the way his mother cooked

===
We been dumbed down fo sho! (See 1 below.)

And why Jolene Byrne is best suited to be he next President of The Chatham County School Board. (See 1a below.)

===

There comes a time when avoiding war is more dangerous than engaging .  (See 2 below.)

===

Obama, the "What Me Worry" president. (See 3 below)

===

Taking innocent lives out of hatred is a tragedy whenever it happens and from whatever source but there can be distinguishing  motivations, actions and reactions.

Is Wisse splitting hairs?  You decide! (See 4 below.)

===

Dick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)The Education Establishment's Success

By Walter Williams

Many view America's education as a failure, but in at least one important way, it's been a success — a success in dumbing down the nation so that we fall easy prey to charlatans, hustlers and quacks. You say, "Williams, that's insulting! Explain yourself." OK, let's start with a question or two.

Are you for or against global warming, later renamed climate change and more recently renamed climate disruption? Environmentalists have renamed it because they don't want to look silly in the face of cooling temperatures. About 650 million years ago, the Earth was frozen from pole to pole, a period scientists call Snowball Earth. The Earth is no longer frozen from pole to pole. There must have been global warming, and it cannot be blamed on humans. Throughout the Earth's history, we've had both ice ages and higher temperatures when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today. There's one immutable fact about climate. It changes, and mankind can't do anything about it. Only idiocy would conclude that mankind's capacity to change the climate is more powerful than the forces of nature.

During Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, his slogans were about hope and change. At the time, I asked people whether they were for or against change. Most often, I received a blank stare, whereupon I reminded them that change is a fact of life. Nonetheless, when candidate Obama uttered "hope and change," it was received with thunderous applause. There was also thunderous applause when Obama promised, "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Only a deranged environmental wacko and duped people could believe that a non-god can change ocean depths.

Americans fall easy prey to charlatans of all stripes because of the education establishment's success in dumbing down the nation. Nowhere has this dumbing down been more successful than it has in creating a historical amnesia. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote in "The Disuniting of America": "History is to the nation ... as memory is to the individual. As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of its past will be disabled in dealing with its present and its future."

The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests students in grades four, eight and 12 on several broad subject areas every few years. Just 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders and 12 percent of 12th-graders were at grade-level proficiency in American history in the 2010 exams. Because students don't learn American history, they learn little about our founding principles and they fail to learn why America is an exceptional nation. But that's a part of the progressive/liberal agenda. If Americans knew and understood our founding principles and values, special interest groups and politicians couldn't run roughshod over our liberties.

But it's not just K-12 students who are ignorant of our history. In a 1990 survey — and there's been no improvement since — almost half of college seniors couldn't locate the Civil War within the correct half-century. More recently, 60 percent of American adults couldn't name the president who ordered the dropping of the first atomic bomb, and over 20 percent didn't know where — or even whether — the atomic bomb had been used. The same people didn't know who America's enemies were during World War II (Germany, Japan and Italy). In a civics survey, more American teenagers were able to name The Three Stooges (Larry, Moe and Curly) than the three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative and judicial). A third of the people who were asked the origin of the statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" responded by saying it's from our Bill of Rights, when it's actually from "The Communist Manifesto."

I'd say that the education establishment has been successful beyond its wildest dreams in reducing Americans' ability to think and therefore causing them to have little knowledge of or love for our founding principles.

1a) Jolene Byrne teaches sociology at Savannah State University and previously taught at Armstrong State University. She earned a B.A. in English at Armstrong State University and an M.A. in Social Sciences at Georgia Southern University. She has taught in public schools at all grade levels.

Jolene tutored students at the West Broad YMCA as a volunteer for the Junior League, helped to organize children’s health awareness events, and has organized voter registration drives. She volunteers at the Inner City Night Shelter and serves on the Disciplinary Action Committee of the Savannah Classical Academy.

Jolene has a six-year-old son who attends Charles Ellis Montessori, a public elementary school.

1. What is the role of competition in local schools in Georgia, e.g. Charter schools and vouchers?

Charter schools have a very successful track record in Chatham County. Some of the best schools in our district, such as Oglethorpe Charter School and Tybee Maritime Academy, are charter schools. I believe it is important to encourage these types of educational experiments, to support those that are successful, and to replicate models that work in our traditional public schools. I support vouchers for students who have special education needs and cannot have those needs met in our public schools, although our priority should be ensuring our public schools are able to meet the needs of all students in the community.

2. What are the two or three advantages and disadvantages of the so-called Common Core Curriculum in the future, and what is your view of whether or how to implement it in Georgia schools?

I support high standards. However, I have serious concerns about a curriculum that has not been tested, that child development experts say is not appropriate for young children, that parents find frustrating, and that teachers feel takes away their freedom to teach effectively. The state legislature has decided that we must implement these standards at the local level. My focus will be to find ways to do so while giving teachers the freedom to be effective in the classroom. Our specialty schools do a good job of this, and I want to see more of our traditional schools move to specialty school models.

3. What is the best way to evaluate teacher performance and use in compensation going forward?

We must hold teachers to high standards and remember that schools do not exist to create jobs for teachers, they exist to educate children. However, tying teacher pay to the results of standardized testing is an ineffective way of measuring and inspiring teacher performance. Regular and rigorous performance evaluations are more effective. Holding administrators accountable for the outcomes in their schools is essential to improving student performance. Most teachers are very good, and we must support them, provide them with the training they need, and give them the freedom to teach. Teachers who are not effective should be let go.

And, finally, in about 100 words or less:
What experience and expertise in your resume makes you highly qualified to serve in this office?

My background as an educator with recent experience in the classroom, my grasp of sociology (the study of how social systems work), my active participation in the community, and my day-to-day experiences as a mother with a child in public school have all prepared me to serve in this office. I am dedicated to working with other board members, community partners, parents, teachers, and other stakeholders to ensure that every child in our community receives an excellent education.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

Into the Fray: ‘Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war’ By MARTIN SHERMAN By adhering to a policy of avoiding confrontations which I srael can win, the government risks leading it into one in which it might lose. It is time for a bold new offensive –  before we are overtaken by events.

To remain at peace when you should be going to war may be often very dangerous....Let us attack and subdue…that we  may ourselves live safely for the future. – Thucydides (c. 460–395 BCE) No government, if it regards war as inevitable, even if it does not want it, would be so foolish as to wait for the moment which is most convenient for the enemy.– Otto von Bismarck (1815–1890) If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. – Winston Churchill (1874-1965) For anyone with half a brain it should be crystal clear: The peace-with-Palestinians paradigm is irredeemably broken. The triple murder of the abducted teenagers, together with the shower of rockets on the South, should have driven that point home, even for the most obdurate devotee of what, perversely, has become known as the “peace process.” Cavalcade of counterproductive concessions Over the last half decade, the Netanyahu government has made a series of humiliating and hazardous concessions in an ill-advised and ill-fated attempt to sustain an unworkable process and an egregious endeavor to curry favor with an innately inimical US administration. Predictably, this has produced nothing but further demands for even more hazardous and humiliating concessions. The cavalcade of counter-productive climb-downs began shortly after Binyamin Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009, when he reneged on his election pledges and accepted the idea of a Palestinian state. This ideological capitulation dramatically transformed the debate on Palestinian statehood from whether there should be a Palestinian state, to what the characteristics of that state should be. It was followed in November 2009 by acquiescence to an unprecedented 10-month construction freeze in the hope of coaxing the Palestinians into negotiations. The only response this elicited – and only as it was just about to expire – was a demand for it to be extended. Then, in 2012, in stark contradiction to Netanyahu’s publicly professed principle of resolute refusal to bow to demands from terrorists (which in large measure brought him much of his initial public prominence), he bowed to the Hamas conditions, releasing over 1,000 convicted terrorists in exchange for a single IDF soldier, Gilad Schalit. This was something so abjectly compliant that even his predecessor, the wildly accommodative Ehud Olmert, had resisted such an exchange. By so doing, in a stroke Netanyahu made a mockery of his own defiant doctrine which had deemed concessions to terrorists counterproductive. Counterproductive cavalcade (cont.) Israel was soon to reap the bitter fruits of its misplaced “largesse” with the brutal murder this April of Baruch Mizrahi, a father of five, at the hands of a terrorist freed in the Schalit deal. Then in 2013 came the demeaning apology to the vehemently anti-Israeli Turkish premier, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for the action of Israeli commandos, who were defending themselves against a frenzied lynch mob aboard a Turkish vessel trying to violate a lawful maritime quarantine of the terrorist enclave of Gaza. Again, the apology was made despite strident assurances that they would not be given. Worse, Israel conceded to the payment of compensation to families of the assailants, killed or maimed during their attempts to disembowel the IDF combatants. The only tangible result o f this undignified expression of contrition has been continued anti-Israel invective from Erdogan and undignified wrangling over the level of compensation. Perhaps the most egregious act of all came later that year – wholesale scores of convicted terrorists were released to coax the Palestinians into agreeing to reenter negotiations, which they should have had a greater interest in conducting than Israel did. This gesture once again proved futile, with Israel being blamed for the failure of the talks and Mahmoud Abbas setting up a unity government with Hamas. The fatal futility of Palestinian-peace paradigm The fundamental reason for this depressing chain of futility is desperate adherence to a notion that some form of consensual peace deal can be struck between Israel, as the nation-state of the Jews, and the Palestinian Arabs, who  seek to become self-governing. The procession of one failed Israeli gesture after the other is a consequence of our refusal to discard the disproved paradigm of land-for-peace and the two-state principle that derives from it. We were only able to keep the “process” from collapsing and maintain false hope that one day it might bear fruit by consenting to increasingly far-reaching concessions. Just how far Israeli positions have been eroded can be judged from the content of Yitzhak Rabin’s last address to the Knesset in 1995, when he sought ratification for the Oslo II Accords. The Palestinian demands, which were then considered by many in Israel as excessive to an almost treasonous degree, would today evoke right-wing opposition  that others would characterize as unreasonable and unrealistic “rejectionism.” The refusal to acknowledge the futility of such efforts to reach a durable peace accord has had a calamitous effect on both Israeli and Palestinian perspectives on policy options/imperatives that Israel can/must undertake. Degrading deterrence  This policy has, in effect, precluded any prospect of inflicting strategic defeat on the Palestinians – (see my “Redefining  (failure as) victory,” January 3, 2013) – since it would, in all likelihood, terminate any chance of sustaining the “peace process,” and subject Israel to international censure . However, as Palestinians sense Israeli reticence, it stiffens their political demands and emboldens them to persist in operations of armed attrition, secure in the knowledge that they will not be subjected to unacceptable losses. Accordingly in 2012, despite the impressive display of the IDF’s military prowess, Operation Pillar of Defense was terminated prematurely – leaving Hamas with what could be portrayed – not unconvincingly – as a strategic victory, gaining them enhanced international standing, and winning important concessions for its farmers and fisherman. (The subsequent degradation of Hamas’s strength had little to do with Israeli policy and much to do with that of Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.) The continued bombardment of the South from Gaza makes a mockery of any claim that Hamas and/or its radical spin-offs have been deterred by previous Israeli military operations. Yes, like Hezbollah in the North, it has been perhaps forced to regroup, redeploy and rearm – but clearly its will to engage remains undiminished and  its operational capabilities has been greatly enhanced. Tactical containment vs strategic victory After all, the capabilities of the weaponry at its disposal have increased dramatically. Thus, while earlier the range of the Palestinian rockets was barely 5 km., and the explosive charge they carried weighed about 5 kg., today their missiles have a range of 75 km. and warheads of 90 kg. Not too long ago, if anyone dared to predict that greater Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be in danger from missiles launched from Gaza, he would have been dismissed with disdain. However, now that the unthinkable has occurred, it is time for a radical reassessment of the policy paradigms Israel has tethered itself to for far too long. The nation has bound its military to a doctrine of tactical containment rather than of strategic victory. This is no longer a viable approach – neither operationally, nor intellectually. Indeed, it is not only the continued shelling in the South that underscores that the Palestinians’ determination to harm  Israelis remains largely unimpaired. It was also the recently emerged, information that they have initiated dozens of abduction attempts, all of which were foiled—until inevitably one was not. Clearly, then, if Israel cannot effectively impact the Palestinians’ motivation and dissuade them from hostile activities that endanger the lives and limbs of Israelis, the government is duty bound to protect its citizens by curtailing the enemy’s ability to achieve their goals. In other words, we must inflict strategic defeat, and impose strategic surrender, on the Palestinians – which implies taking control of the territories where the attacks are planned, prepared and perpetrated. The perilous path of ‘conflict management’ To achieve this, we must forsake the vain hope of ever reaching an agreed and lasting peace with some Palestinian partner in exchange for any configuration of territorial concessions. This clearly requires a sharp discontinuity in the mindset of the Israeli leadership, for even those skeptical about the land-for-peace principle and Palestinian sincerity/ability to conclude a durable peace agreement subscribe to the  concept of “conflict management” instead of “conflict resolution.” This is a perilous path to tread as the dramatic erosion of Israeli positions and the equally dramatic enhancement of Palestinian capabilities, discussed previously, vividly illustrate. Indeed, with tumultuous convulsions engulfing the Mideast and pushing ever closer to Israel’s borders, old assumptions as to alleged allies and alliances are no longer relevant. These developments make any agreement concluded with any Palestinian totally meaningless. For as I pointed out last week, even under wildly optimistic assumptions that some Palestinian partner were found who could conclude an acceptable accord with Israel, and even if he had the requisite authority to implement its terms, and the requisite sincerity not to renege on them, and even if he were not replaced by some more radical successor who would repudiate the accord, external forces in the region could render it worthless. A micro-mini demilitarized Palestinian state will be a flimsy foil indeed between Israel and an Islamic State-controlled regime in Jordan. Will abduction prove a transformative event? By adhering to a policy of avoiding confrontations which Israel can win, the government risks leading it into one which it might lose. This cannot and must not continue. What is needed is a proactive initiative to preempt the emerging perils before they descend upon us. In this regard, the government must resign itself to the unpalatable fact that Israel is unlikely to win international affection. The most we can realistically hope for is to be grudgingly respected; the least it must unequivocally ensure is to be greatly feared. Undoubtedly, for such a drastic metamorphosis in the perceptions and policy preferences of Israeli leadership, some sort of dramatic transformative event is required. It is still too early to assess whether the abduction and murder of the three Israeli teens will become such an event. There are, however, increasing signs that it has ignited considerable public outrage and anger, and is precipitating a perceptible stiffening of public attitudes toward the Palestinians, and impatience toward the government – and what is increasingly seen as its ineffectual impotence. It is time for a bold new offensive – before we are overtaken by events. If the tragic deaths of Naftali Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah act as a catalyst to galvanize the public into compelling the government into effective action, their murders may well come to symbolize a turning point in the salvation of the nation. ‘Cry “havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war...’  The government must seize the moment and act in the spirit of the call by Mark Anthony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. With much of the Arab world in disarray and enmeshed in internal turmoil, Israel must: 1. Disavow the “peace process,” disengage from contacts with the Palestinians as a national collective, and declare  them to be what they themselves declare themselves to be: An implacable enemy of the Zionist entity. 2. Launch a $1 billion strategic public diplomacy offensive (1 percent of the state budget), focusing on delegitimizing the  Palestinian narrative and highlighting the depravities of the Arab world, in general, and of Palestinian society, in  particular, while contrasting them with the moral merits and scientific, technological and other accomplishments of Israel. 3. Coercively dismantle and disarm the Palestinian security forces. 4. Refrain from any support for the unsustainable Palestinian economy, withhold any services hitherto rendered to it and allow it to collapse, as it inevitably will. 5. Offer generous relocation grants to any individual Palestinians wishing to extricate themselves from the hardships that will inevitably result from the forgoing measures and build a better life for himself/his family in a third party country of their choice. In weighing the implementation of this program, Israelis should bear in mind: If you will it, it is no fantasy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3)  US Southern Command Chief: 'Crime- Terror Convergence' on Southern Border Is 'Existential' Threat to Nation By Sandy Fitzgerald The United States' neglect of its southern border has created a threat that challenges the country's national security, says the general in charge of overseeing the region, and he is concerned that terrorists and others can exploit the vulnerabilities that have been created. "In comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated drug and [undocumented immigrant] flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance," Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of U.S. Southern Command, told Defense One. "Many argue these  threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree." Kelly has asked Congress to allocate more money and equipment to help him and his command fight the steady flow of drugs, weapons, and migrants from Central America, but the budget has already been cut when it comes to border security.  More than 100,000 migrants have come from Central America to the U.S. border, mostly children who have traveled thousands of miles from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. But it's not only children coming north. Kelly said that last year, his task force was not able to act on almost 75 percent of illegal trafficking incidents.  "Last year, we had to cancel more than 200 very effective engagement activities and numerous multilateral exercises," Kelly told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, his command's website reports. "I simply sit and watch it go by. And because of service cuts, I don't expect to get any immediate relief, in terms of assets, to work with in this region of the world.” Kelly told Defense One that the area has turned into a "crime-terror convergence," that is only becoming worse. "All this corruption and violence is directly or indirectly due to the insatiable U.S. demand for drugs, particularly cocaine, heroin and now methamphetamines,” Kelly told Defense One, "all of which are produced in Latin America and smuggled into the U.S. along an incredibly efficient network along which anything — hundreds of tons of drugs, people, terrorists, potentially weapons of mass destruction or children — can travel, so long as they can pay the fare." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, D-N.J., pointed out in June that Kelly's SOUTHCOM forces are only sourced at "five percent of the capacity" they need.  "This is a humanitarian and refugee crisis. It’s being caused in large measure by thousands in Central America who believe it is better to run for their lives and risk dying, than stay and die for sure,” Menendez said. "The bottom line is that we must attack this problem from a foreign policy perspective, a humanitarian perspective, a criminal perspective, immigration perspective, and a national security perspective.” Last Monday, President Barack Obama said he plans to request $2 billion for additional border security  personnel, immigration judges, and detention and processing resources. However, Kelly said the poverty and violence that is pushing migration are what is creating the threat to national security, as Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala have the first, fourth and fifth-highest homicide rates,respectively, in the world. Kelly said that the United States needs the military more now than ever to protect its border. "This region does not ask for much," said Kelly. "Some of my counterparts perceive that the United States is disengaging from the region and from the world in general. We should remember that our friends and allies are not the only ones watching our actions closely, and in the meantime, drug traffickers, criminal networks, and other actors, unburdened by budget cuts, cancelled activities, and employee furloughs, will have the opportunity to exploit the partnership vacuum left by reduced U.S. military engagement." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) The Abyss Between Two  Heinous Episodes Now will come assertions of equivalence between  Israeli and Palestinian societies. But are the  situations comparable? By Ruth Wisse As America approached its national holiday this year, Israel and world Jewry were plunged into mourning for three students who were abducted and murdered by members of the Palestinian terror group Hamas. Thirty-eight years ago, on July 4, 1976, jubilation greeted the news that an Israeli commando raid had freed 102 fellow citizens held hostage by Palestinian terrorists at an airport in Entebbe, Uganda. These different outcomes for the same kind of villainy directed at Jewish targets prompts us to ask which side is winning this unilateral war. Some would say that Arab violence against Jews is no villainy at all, but merely an alternate form of national politics. Representatives of the American government seeking peace in the Middle East have been shuttling between Israeli and Palestinian leaders as though dealing with equivalent societies with an equal investment in territorial compromise. In the arts, the Metropolitan Opera in New York this season plans to present a work that gives sympathetic voice to Palestinian terrorists who in 1985 shoved a disabled American off a cruise ship and into the ocean because he was a Jew. Reflecting  the abjuration of evil, the opera is called "The Death of Klinghoffer" instead of "The Murder of Klinghoffer." Now that Jewish suspects have been apprehended in the Jerusalem murder of 16-year-old Arab  Mohammed Abu Khudair, there are those who would cite the parallel between this heinous crime  and the recent murders of Gilad Shaar, Eyal Yifrach, and Naftali Frenkel as proof of moral and  political equivalence between the two societies. One anticipates that in the coming days the  standard outlets for such views will offer standard justifications for Arab rioting and condemnations  of Jewish extremism as part of the same alleged cycle of violence. But are the situations comparable? Arab rioters did not wait for the identification or apprehension of suspects in the killing of Mohammed  Abu Khudair to begin destroying Jewish life and property. One of their first targets was Jerusalem's  new light-rail system that connects Jewish and Arab sectors of the city. In their own communities,  murderers of Israelis enjoy support, encouragement, adulation. News of the abduction of three Israeli  boys had no sooner hit the Internet on June 13 than Arab celebrants were handing out candies and  posting three-fingered salutes, called Gilad Shalits, for the Israeli soldier seized by Hamas and held  for five years until "swapped" in 2011 for 1,027 Arab prisoners whose crimes had included the killing  of 569 Israelis. The celebrants of mid-June were mocking the value that Jews place on individual life, one that contrasts so sharply with the value they place on taking Jewish life. Three Shalits would  have given them three times the bargaining power had the abduction not ended with the boys being  shot instead. Almost a month after the murder of the Jewish boys, the Arab perpetrators are still on  the loose. In startling contrast, Israeli police instantly distinguished among several false leads to track down the  Arab victim's suspected killers. Some Israelis had already denounced the presumed Jewish seekers  of vengeance, with neither side waiting for formal indictment much less due process before  engaging in self-recrimination on one hand and accusation on the other. The identification of Jewish  suspects by the Jerusalem police triggered instantaneous condemnations: Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, who heads the Yeshiva at Elon Moreh, said Jewish law calls for capital punishment for crimes of  murder, citing first the crime against the Israeli Arab and then the crime against the Jewish students. Speaking at the funeral of the three Jewish boys on July 1, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  said, "A deep and wide moral abyss separates us from our enemies. They sanctify death while we  sanctify life. They sanctify cruelty while we sanctify compassion." He made the same allusion to  political and moral asymmetry four days later in his message of condolence to the Abu Khudair  family, pledging that the crime against their son would be punished because "[that is] the difference  between us and our neighbors. They consider murderers to be heroes. They name public squares  after them. We don't. We condemn them and we put them on trial and we'll put them in prison." It is  one of the ironies of Israel that Jewish parents whose children are murdered by Arabs are not  guaranteed justice as surely as Arabs whose children are murdered by Jews. The problem of evil may be universal, but Jews have faced evil in an existential and political form to a  degree that makes it different in kind. In reclaiming their land, Jews acquired the ability to defend  what they create, and perhaps by their example to inspire others to resist criminal forces. In 1957,  Golda Meir, who was later to become Israel's prime minister, told an American audience that peace  would come "when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." To pretend otherwise is to  fail those Arab children no less than the Israeli schoolboys who looked forward to a long and useful  life. Ms. Wisse, research professor of Yiddish literature and comparative literature at Harvard University, is the author, most recently, of "No Joke: Making Jewish Humor" (Princeton, 2013).