Member Posts - October 2007
James Carville's email today:
Dear Friend,
If you really want to scare your friends, I recommend dressing as a Washington Republican.
Here's a group of people so shameful they oppose the SCHIP bill that would give health insurance to ten million children. On top of that, they launched a vicious political attack on a twelve-year-old boy, Graeme Frost, who suffered a near-fatal car accident, after he delivered a radio address imploring the President to sign the children's health care bill. They went to his house, spread lies about his parents' finances and even posted his address on a website so his family could be harassed.
I've seen low in my day, but attacking Graeme Frost is really the bottom of the barrel -- and this is only the beginning. In 2008, desperately trying to return to power, Republicans are bound to turn their smear machine on Harry Reid. We have to make sure he has the resources to fight back on behalf of all Democrats.
Fight the Republican smear machine -- make a contribution to Harry Reid today.
After launching their attack on the twelve-year-old boy, Republicans ran away from responsibility until the media finally caught on to their dirty game.
Republican staffers were giving anonymous quotes to reporters proclaiming they had not been involved -- but it turned out they were helping smear the kid's family by sending emails stating his parents should not be eligible for the program because the father owned his own business, and Graeme and his sister attend private school.
Well the truth is, both children were on scholarship, and even the conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal wrote, "It turns out, they belonged to just the sort of family that a modest SCHIP bill is supposed to help."
We can expect more of these attacks in the year to come. If Republicans were boxers, they'd spend most of their time hitting below the belt. Well, we beat them and their ugly tactics in 2006, and we'll do it again next year, but Harry Reid needs your support right now.
Fight the Republican smear machine -- make a contribution to Harry Reid today.
Thank you,
James Carville
Most of our Senators and Representatives are ill-prepared to hold their current positions, as is evident by their behavior and decisions. One salient example is the recent letter regarding the rebuke of Rush Limbaugh by members in the senate. Still another, the subsequent statement on the floor by Sen. Harry Reid and his remarkably unstatesman-like attempt at claiming a part in the good done by Rush's auctioning of the now immortalized letter, which also listed complicit signatories.
What I and many citizens find particularly offensive is the assumption by congress that we don't see through their self-serving actions and lame speeches intended to convey noble motives. The disingenuous nature and disrespect for not only their offices, but also the office of the president, demonstrates ineptness never before witnessed. The significantly diminished character of the nation's leaders has contributed, to some degree, to the decline in the moral fabric of our citizenry.
Very few still hold out hope for the current lot of senators and representatives. With the depth of the deficiencies in integrity, there is little proof of that eventuality.
Sen. Reid, you are a disappointment.
What I and many citizens find particularly offensive is the assumption by congress that we don't see through their self-serving actions and lame speeches intended to convey noble motives. The disingenuous nature and disrespect for not only their offices, but also the office of the president, demonstrates ineptness never before witnessed. The significantly diminished character of the nation's leaders has contributed, to some degree, to the decline in the moral fabric of our citizenry.
Very few still hold out hope for the current lot of senators and representatives. With the depth of the deficiencies in integrity, there is little proof of that eventuality.
Sen. Reid, you are a disappointment.
I urge you to add your name as a cosponsor of the Improving Student Testing Act of 2007 (S. 2053), sponsored by Senators Feingold and Leahy, and the No Child Left Behind Reform Act (S. 1194), sponsored by Senators Dodd and Salazar.
I support the No Child Left Behind goals of improving student learning and closing achievement and skills gaps among different groups of students. However, the law's reliance on standardized testing as the sole measure of school and student performance represents a one-size-fits-all approach that does not provide an accurate measure of achievement and dilutes the targeting of resources and assistance to schools truly in need.
S. 2053 and S. 1194 would both allow states to use growth models and multiple measures to assess student learning and school success, rather than simply looking at their performance on a standardized test one day of the year.
S. 2053 would also place greater emphasis on assessments that measure the kinds of advanced skills--higher-order thinking, analytical, and problem solving--students need for the 21st century and would offer states the option to go back to the pre-NCLB testing schedule for statewide tests (at least once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school).
S. 1194 would also target school choice and supplemental educational services to students in specific subgroups that fall short of Adequate Yearly Progress targets, making sure that resources are targeted to the students who need them the most.
S. 2053 and S. 1194 represent a critically important step toward curbing the epidemics of "teaching to the test" and narrowing of the curriculum, both of which have been negative, unintended by-products of NCLB's accountability requirements.
I urge you to cosponsor these important bills.
I support the No Child Left Behind goals of improving student learning and closing achievement and skills gaps among different groups of students. However, the law's reliance on standardized testing as the sole measure of school and student performance represents a one-size-fits-all approach that does not provide an accurate measure of achievement and dilutes the targeting of resources and assistance to schools truly in need.
S. 2053 and S. 1194 would both allow states to use growth models and multiple measures to assess student learning and school success, rather than simply looking at their performance on a standardized test one day of the year.
S. 2053 would also place greater emphasis on assessments that measure the kinds of advanced skills--higher-order thinking, analytical, and problem solving--students need for the 21st century and would offer states the option to go back to the pre-NCLB testing schedule for statewide tests (at least once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school).
S. 1194 would also target school choice and supplemental educational services to students in specific subgroups that fall short of Adequate Yearly Progress targets, making sure that resources are targeted to the students who need them the most.
S. 2053 and S. 1194 represent a critically important step toward curbing the epidemics of "teaching to the test" and narrowing of the curriculum, both of which have been negative, unintended by-products of NCLB's accountability requirements.
I urge you to cosponsor these important bills.
As Congress considers reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, I would like to share with you my views as an educator impacted by the law.
The goals of the law -- to raise student achievement, close achievement gaps, and ensure that every child is taught by a highly qualified, caring teacher - are important and commendable.
I hope Congress will slow down and take the time necessary to craft a bill that truly helps us reach these goals.
I urge you to revisit the law's one-size-fits-all approach and focus on testing as the sole measurement of student and school success.
An accountability system should include multiple measures of student learning and school effectiveness instead of the current one-day snapshot based solely on standardized tests; should reward progress over time to improve student achievement at all levels, and should recognize individual needs of students such as students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
The bill must also help reduce class sizes and modernize school facilities to ensure every student a safe, modern and effective learning environment.
The ESEA reauthorization should also reject any proposals to link teacher pay to student test scores. Just as a standardized test is not an accurate reflection of what a student knows, it is not an accurate reflection of what a teacher has taught.
I thank you for your consideration of my views, and those of my fellow educators, as you move forward on this important reauthorization.
The goals of the law -- to raise student achievement, close achievement gaps, and ensure that every child is taught by a highly qualified, caring teacher - are important and commendable.
I hope Congress will slow down and take the time necessary to craft a bill that truly helps us reach these goals.
I urge you to revisit the law's one-size-fits-all approach and focus on testing as the sole measurement of student and school success.
An accountability system should include multiple measures of student learning and school effectiveness instead of the current one-day snapshot based solely on standardized tests; should reward progress over time to improve student achievement at all levels, and should recognize individual needs of students such as students with disabilities and English Language Learners.
The bill must also help reduce class sizes and modernize school facilities to ensure every student a safe, modern and effective learning environment.
The ESEA reauthorization should also reject any proposals to link teacher pay to student test scores. Just as a standardized test is not an accurate reflection of what a student knows, it is not an accurate reflection of what a teacher has taught.
I thank you for your consideration of my views, and those of my fellow educators, as you move forward on this important reauthorization.
On Wednesday, President Bush was asked why he vetoed the CHIP legislation that would provide health care to almost ten million children. His response: "to ensure that I am relevant".
It is amazing that he thinks his relevancy is more important than health care for ten million children.
We already have 69 votes in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill without the President, and the House of Representatives came within 13 votes of overriding his veto yesterday.
This is a tiny margin, and your efforts can help put us over the top.
Sign our petition to member of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our children are more important than the President's relevancy.
Now the President is saying "Why don't we sit down and compromise on CHIP?" How in the world does he think we got where we are? How did we get to 69 senators to support this legislation? Compromise.
We started with a cost of $70 billion, then went to $50 billion and finally compromised at $35 billion. For the President to come now and say, "Let's compromise," is completely disingenuous. Saving children should be more important to the President than saving face.
Sign our petition to member of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our children are more important than the President's relevancy.
Here is the irony of the President's veto: This program was created by Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican, and Ted Kennedy 10 years ago. Why? Because Orrin Hatch had two families come to him -- both families were working. They didn't qualify for Medicaid. They couldn't buy insurance. They didn't have the money. So in the finest example of bipartisan cooperation, conservative Orrin Hatch and liberal Ted Kennedy sat down and created one of our nation's most successful health care programs.
Now George Bush vetoed this bill simply to remain relevant. Ten million children are not irrelevant.
Sign our petition to member of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our children are more important than the President's relevancy.
It is amazing that he thinks his relevancy is more important than health care for ten million children.
We already have 69 votes in the Senate, more than enough to pass the bill without the President, and the House of Representatives came within 13 votes of overriding his veto yesterday.
This is a tiny margin, and your efforts can help put us over the top.
Sign our petition to member of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our children are more important than the President's relevancy.
Now the President is saying "Why don't we sit down and compromise on CHIP?" How in the world does he think we got where we are? How did we get to 69 senators to support this legislation? Compromise.
We started with a cost of $70 billion, then went to $50 billion and finally compromised at $35 billion. For the President to come now and say, "Let's compromise," is completely disingenuous. Saving children should be more important to the President than saving face.
Sign our petition to member of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our children are more important than the President's relevancy.
Here is the irony of the President's veto: This program was created by Orrin Hatch, a conservative Republican, and Ted Kennedy 10 years ago. Why? Because Orrin Hatch had two families come to him -- both families were working. They didn't qualify for Medicaid. They couldn't buy insurance. They didn't have the money. So in the finest example of bipartisan cooperation, conservative Orrin Hatch and liberal Ted Kennedy sat down and created one of our nation's most successful health care programs.
Now George Bush vetoed this bill simply to remain relevant. Ten million children are not irrelevant.
Sign our petition to member of the House who oppose CHIP -- tell them our children are more important than the President's relevancy.
Pin a heart on us, the living;
We, the unmoving.
The deceased have more breath
Than our breathing.
Emblems of our emptiness
And weakness
Puncturing hunger’s sleeve with
Dreary brooch.
Cackling our minute’s final gasp
With warring,
Weak idols pinned to proud chests,
Unfilled, all.
Pin sweet thoughts upon the dull,
Not pennants
Of gluttony, empire, warfare
And oil.
Whilst our children die for those
Already dead
Let us begin anew with this; the worlds
Flagless living.
© 2007 mrp/thepoetryman
Only this remained of the
Stone
The thunder slapped greedily
Over the obstinate sky grown low
Striking over collapsed
Spear
Remember this is not make-believe
But new, bright and breathing
Of the eagle and the lioness
Seeking mere
Food and water
Writing history with bloody awe
We should have saved the young
And not left idle the spring of man
Charity subdued in loathing
Sword
They may now read of this slaughter
Papers insured
Gun's possession
But failed in man’s ache for murder
We shouldn’t recommence our fixation
Wielding science’s crush of matter and atom
Difficult, slow and deliberate is this
Bomb
dropping overhead, called homeward
To its use;
Radiation
bathing nations
With the stench of man’s undoing
Something as seemingly negligible
As affirming life in
Petri-dish.
© 2007 mrp/thepoetryman
Don't burn the flag. Wash it!
1. The United States bound by policy can't take a country.
2. We are not fighting conventional soldiers the right wing calls them "Thugs" in that case let the Iraqi's handle it.
3. We are in the wrong place.
4. Our soldiers are NOT fighting for our Freedom or Safety (These can't be guaranteed at all by no one).
5. Our soldiers are NOT fighting for Iraqi Freedom.
6. Military surges are troop build ups.
7. We promised NEVER to get into a Vietnam-Like situation again
8. Right wing Fundamentalist Christians (another religious sect) pushed Bush into office to eliminate any and all opposition to Wup Ass mentality. I guess something Jesus taught them.
9. We can't afford this stupidity cash wise, and the death's of our soldiers well...here comes another wall.
10. We just don't belong there period.
2. We are not fighting conventional soldiers the right wing calls them "Thugs" in that case let the Iraqi's handle it.
3. We are in the wrong place.
4. Our soldiers are NOT fighting for our Freedom or Safety (These can't be guaranteed at all by no one).
5. Our soldiers are NOT fighting for Iraqi Freedom.
6. Military surges are troop build ups.
7. We promised NEVER to get into a Vietnam-Like situation again
8. Right wing Fundamentalist Christians (another religious sect) pushed Bush into office to eliminate any and all opposition to Wup Ass mentality. I guess something Jesus taught them.
9. We can't afford this stupidity cash wise, and the death's of our soldiers well...here comes another wall.
10. We just don't belong there period.
As the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, we have proposed and argued many legislative bills. But there is one that really means alot to our nation's kids. Especially the ones who don't have healthcare. It is those kids who go to school sick, hungry and unintersted in learning. These are the kids who will run our country in the future. It is that if these kids come to school sick, hungry and irritable, they will not live healthy and productive lives. Especially for those kids who do not have health insurance because their parents cannot afford it. If SCHIP is Vetoed by President Bush, then their scurity of their health are at stake. I cannot see so many kids in this country who come to school sick and hungry and as a result they cannot concentrate. Senator Reid, and all the Democrats have done a good job in trying to secure a better future for the United States. It is a shame that the President would veto what will be benificial to millions of children who are our youngest citizens and the rest of our country.
There is a deja vu quality to the news these days. The pattern that led us into the war in Iraq is being repeated as the President beats the drums harder each day for an attack on Iran. For the most part, the Democrats act like deer in the headlights as they view the spectacle. When, oh when, will they step up and take responsibility for stopping the march to another war by reminding the country that Bush's accusations can't be trusted, his facts are fictions, his strategies unravel, and his political instincts are tyrannical. My instinct tells me that the Democratic presidential candidate that is the first to do this is the candidate who gets the nomination, the candidate who will win next year, and the candidate who may, just may, save the country from even greater disasters. Obama is a credible candidate today in large measure because of what he did in 2002 -- oppose the war in Iraq. Who will oppose the war in Iran?
I listen to talk radio every day and I listen to almost all popular shows on radio to keep up with what each side is saying. I am curious as to why Harry Reid was discussing Rush Limbaugh on the Senate floor. Also, if Harry Reid was discussing Rush Limbaugh on the Senate floor why didn't he get the facts straight?
Harry, your a great guy but when you distort the facts as you ahve done in this situation you lose all credibility. I would like to know what you have to say about this. I listened to show when Mr Limbaugh made the statement about "phony soldiers". I may not like any particular talk show host but I would not distort the facts. I would lose credibility if I did that. Looking forward to responses and views on this subject.
Harry, your a great guy but when you distort the facts as you ahve done in this situation you lose all credibility. I would like to know what you have to say about this. I listened to show when Mr Limbaugh made the statement about "phony soldiers". I may not like any particular talk show host but I would not distort the facts. I would lose credibility if I did that. Looking forward to responses and views on this subject.
Posts By Month
Posts