Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Our public schools put far too much emphasis on FCAT

Re: Pinellas school district among best on FCAT, July 20.

As a parent of two students in Pinellas County public schools, I respectfully disagree with Jan Rouse, the school district administrator who is quoted in your news story as saying Pinellas' inclusion among the top 10 districts for FCAT scores "shows the district is moving in the right direction."

Sadly, what it shows is the hijacking of the curriculum in search of the perfect test score. At least Rouse's counterpart in Hillsborough has the honesty to admit FCAT "drives everything we do."

While I still believe my children have been blessed with good, caring teachers, each year I have more and more reservations about keeping them in Pinellas public schools. Last school year, my first-grader brought home countless FCAT-style multiple-choice practice lessons, with unimaginative stories and questions that occasionally had more than one correct answer. She is being drilled (brainwashed maybe) to look at the answers provided, not think of them on her own. She was also given a "writing prompt" months after starting first grade, to which she drew a picture, probably the only time her creativity will be fully accepted in the formulaic writing instruction that dominates today. Her final report card indicated she had three official county "assessment scores." And she won't even take the state test for two more years!

So, yes, it is no wonder that Pinellas has made it into the top 10. It has certainly turned its schools into FCAT drill centers, and district administrators need to know that not all parents are impressed. In fact, later on the same day I saw an advertisement for a private school using the fact that the school doesn't focus on the FCAT as a selling point! I urge parents and citizens concerned about the costs and time spent on FCAT prep to let school officials and lawmakers know.

Obfuscating for "peace'

Re: Pushing for peace, July 21.

I really don't blame the Times for allowing so much exposure to a group such as the one featured in this article. After all, it is not too difficult to figure out where the Times stands in relationship to President Bush or his policies. Thus, this fluff piece is allowed the space that should be allocated to more important topics. Perhaps our local veteran organizations would be a place to start.

I take issue with a group whose members obfuscate the truth while spinning their message of righteous indignation about an issue they know little about. The very signs they carry mislead those they wish to convert. "Bush Lies, Soldiers Die" is about as original as "No War for Oil." There were no lies spoken to the American people. Not one shred of evidence exists that President Bush lied about the evidence on hand at the time, or that the administration forced the CIA to fudge its reports in order to get the result the administration wanted. There is so much evidence to debunk the "war for oil" complaint that it makes little sense to even bring it up.

The peace movement, as usual, has nothing to offer in the way of alternatives to the situation in Iraq. They are just for "peace." Peace is easy to be for. But it comes at a price that our soldiers and military families understand very well. They deserve your paper's attention. Sometimes long-term peace can only be maintained by the willingness to defeat tyranny. "Peace at any price" as an avoidance tactic has the pitfall of being cowardly. America is better than that.

It's our oil-fueled foreign policy

Re: London mayor says misguided Western policies fueled attacks, July 21.

London Mayor Ken Livingston made clear what all of us should have know long ago: Terrorists, as evil as they are, result from Western intervention and political manipulation in the Middle East. How long will it take us to realize that people are likely to get ugly if you invade their country and support for your own gain their gangster tyrants?

As the mayor indicates, we have done this since World War I, when oil became important to the West. Until we realize how evil we have been, talk of controlling terrorists within our own boundaries is comparable to taking aspirin for a major cancer.

Krauthammer's quantum leap

Re: Homegrown terrorism, July 15.

While Charles Krauthammer makes reasonable points about the Muslim terrorists in Holland and Britain, he suddenly takes a casual but quantum leap when he says, "Sept. 11 forced us to intervene massively in this civil war [within Islam], which is why we are in Iraq."

Saddam Hussein, brutal madman though he be, maintained a secular society. It is places like Bush and Cheney's oil-friendly regime in Saudi Arabia, where 17 of the 19 hijackers came from, that institutionalize the fundamentalist madrassas that encourage jihad and hatred of all things Western. Krauthammer's statement makes no sense, and is typical of the media and Republican defense of a president who was set on invading Iraq way before 9/11 happened.

From statements from former members of his administration to the Downing Street memo, to the Wilson/Plame outrage, it's clear that 9/11 is not why our soldiers are getting killed and killing in Iraq.

Just protecting Israel

Re: Homegrown terrorism.

As usual Charles Krauthammer writes a perfectly logical and convincing article, regarding Muslim terrorists and how to cope with them. Then he spoils it by throwing in a non sequitur about Iraq. Not only was Iraq not the home of religious terrorists, it was ruled by a secular dictator who controlled them, brutally perhaps, but effectively.

By our invasion, we have created terrorism in Iraq which we try to fight with too few troops and by creating a democracy where none existed before. Nonetheless we are completely involved in Iraq now and cannot run away unless we want to encourage the terrorists in their fight against us.

Krauthammer is simply protecting Israel again, which is his sole objective when discussing the Middle East. This is somewhat similar to your editorial about Sami Al-Arian on the opposite page. Israel has created Muslim terror by its forceful occupation of Palestinian land with illegal settlements. Palestine has done nothing to harm Americans, except Jewish Americans in Israel, but if we follow your editorial advice, we may create more terrorists against us as we did in Iraq.

Numbers don't tell the story

Re: Consider the context, letter, July 20.

I would simply ask the letter writer to note a just-released report stating that 25,000 Iraqis have died in the past two years whereas American casualties in Iraq for the same period number under 2,000. Do these numbers suggest that the Iraqis are the aggressors?

The letter writer's use of numbers of fatalities to condemn Israel does not consider the context; indeed, it is a reminder of the senseless loss of life because of failed Palestinian leadership and an intifada directed against Israel.

Let us all hope that under new Palestinian leadership there will be an end to the violence, destruction and misleading representations.

Isn't there a better way?

Re: Consider the context, letter.

Israeli children (Jews, Arabs, Druze, Christians and Bahai) are not participating in suicide bombings, riots, rock throwing (rocks can severely injure or kill), sniping, roadside bombings, or rocket attacks. They are, also, not being used as human shields, a tactic the Palestinian "militants" use when they fire from crowds consisting mainly of children they have encouraged to be in the streets with them during moments of peril.

If not enough of them have been casualties to suit the letter writer, I can't say I'm sorry.

Israeli houses have not been destroyed, but pizza parlors, discotheques and buses have been, some by suicide bombers counted by the letter writer as victims.

The "occupied territories" he refers to were occupied by Jordan and Egypt from 1948 to 1967 with no call for a Palestinian state. Why, when Israel had agreed to the creation of such a state under the Oslo Accords, did the Palestinian leadership begin bombings? The bombing has continued and has resulted in the tragedies on both sides that the letter writer notes.

Isn't there a better way?

To compare defensive measures, although they sometimes result in innocent casualties and injustices, to premeditated suicide bombings that force these same defensive measures is illogical and unfair.

Peace will only come with understanding for both sides, not with distortions and out-of-context accusations aimed only at Israel.

Stopping too short?

Re: The war in Iraq.

For political reasons our president refuses to send additional troops to Iraq. If you listen carefully to his generals, when asked if they have enough men and supplies, they do not answer yes or no. Instead, they do as ordered; they say the war in Iraq will be won politically, by the Iraqi people taking control of their government.

Every day it becomes clearer and clearer that we are not making it safe for the Iraqi people to create a government that provides security for their people. No doubt, as I write these words a bomb is going off, maiming and murdering men, women, children, soldiers (ours and theirs), police and civilians.

We do not have enough troops on the ground in Iraq to provide the protection these brave people need. Is Bush following in his father's footsteps? Has he stopped too short?

The fundamentalist menace

Re: Victims confront Ala. clinic bomber, July 19.

Prosecutor Michael W. Whisonant compared Eric Rudolph to "religious extremists who set off bombs in subways and fly airplanes into buildings." Rudolph is exactly such a beast and should be classified as such. However, no reporter, editor or official has labeled Eric Rudolph a "Christian-extremist" or referred to him as a "Christian terrorist." Why not? Are the radical views that incited him to kill innocent people somehow less heinous because he is Christian rather than Muslim?

At a time when many are walking a razor's edge between fear and hatred, those with the ability to foster greater understanding need to do so at every opportunity. Americans must come to understand that the practices of religious fundamentalism, regardless of the specific religion, are a threat to rational, peaceful people everywhere.

Questions for both sides

I have a question for self-described Christians who support the war in Iraq: Where in the Bible does it say that the God of love wants you to hate your enemies? (I can name many places where the Bible says we are to love our enemies.) Where in the Bible does it say that the Prince of Peace is in favor of pre-emptive war?

And here's a question for Muslims who refuse to denounce the hateful acts of some of their co-religionists: If Islam is a religion of peace, why do we never hear about Quaker suicide bombers, or Buddhist militants terrorizing Amish farmers (or vice versa)?

Muslim and American

Re: Muslim outcry seems late, letter, July 20.

Young American Muslims do join the military and security services just the way any other American does. Islam is not a race of people, nor is it an ethnic group. It is a religion that has a growing number of American converts. When an American Muslim joins the U.S. military forces, then he or she does this as an American wishing to serve his or her country.

I am an American convert to Islam. The religion I believe in does not make me any less American than if I were a Christian, a Jew or even an atheist. I have had the good fortune to visit many masjids (mosques) throughout the United States and have never heard any imam preach hatred toward America or American foreign policy. I have never heard any imam endorse terrorist activities or justify them and I have never seen any so-called "firebrands" preach hate in any masjid or anywhere else.

I believe that grass-roots organizations such as CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) do speak out against violence and terrorism regardless of what the current events are. Most of the Muslims all over the world hate terrorism and violence, but we Muslims who live in Western countries hate it even more because it is wrong, it is inhuman, it is against the tenets of Islam and also because we are victimized by the backlash of hate.

We American Muslims are your neighbors and fellow Americans. It is time for everyone to listen to us and for the American media to give us a chance to speak out.

BSE is not a public health risk

Re: USDA mishandling mad cow scare, editorial, July 6.

I am a Florida beef producer, and your editorial concerns me. I can assure you that Florida beef producers and beef producers across the country are taking BSE prevention seriously.

The fact is, more than 400,000 animals have been tested for BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad cow disease) since June 2004 as part of the government's intensive, large-scale surveillance program. This surveillance program has been reviewed and supported by the international review panel of BSE experts and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Harvard has been analyzing the risk of this disease since 1998.

But what's most important to understand - and what your editorial missed - is that this testing program is about animal health, not food safety. There are already multiple fire walls in place to protect the safety of the beef we eat, such as the removal from the food supply of any materials that could carry the BSE agent (such as brain or spinal cord). And we know that BSE has not been found in the beef we do eat - such as steaks, roasts and ground beef.

Scientists and statisticians agree that USDA's comprehensive program tests enough animals to find BSE if it exists in this country - even if there are just a few cases. Despite this extremely aggressive program, only one of those animals has tested positive for the disease and this animal did not enter the human food supply. Scientists, medical professionals and government officials agree that BSE is not a public health risk.

Experts from the World Organization for Animal Health believe that testing every animal for BSE is not scientifically justified and does not provide additional protection for consumers. Believe me, if it did, cattlemen would be first to support it.

As a rancher and a father, those facts make me confident in the health of our cattle herd and the safety of the beef I serve to my family and families around the nation.

Just another cheap-shot artist

Please bring back Dave Barry. Even Gene Weingarten is funnier than Garrison Keillor, who is posing as a hick from the heartland, but is another cheap-shot artist, a la Pat Oliphant.

Too much ado about footwear

Re: Flip-flop flap: How casual is too casual? July 20.

How ridiculous. The lacrosse team looked cute as anything in their pretty dresses, flip-flops and sandals. Boo to the "experts and analysts."

My advice to you is, "Lighten up."

Not in the White House

Re: Flip-Flops.

I am a 45-year-old woman who loves fashion and style, but I would not ever wear flip-flops in front of the president of the United States!

Flip-flops are a casual, laid-back style that belongs with a pair of shorts, jeans or a bathing-suit.

I love my flip-flops and sandals, but I try to wear them only with the appropriate dress to which they are suited.

If they're okay in church . . .

So they wore flip-flops when they visited the White House. Big deal. Some people wear them when they go to church. I'm sure God doesn't mind.

If they're good enough in God's house, they're good enough for the White House.

Another White House problem

President Bush's recantation of firing anyone "involved" in the Valerie Plame/Wilson-CIA-identity-outing to terminating any staff member "convicted" in this unseemly affair is nothing less than, dare I say it, a "flip-flop."

[Last modified July 23, 2005, 00:54:16]