Even I didn’t know it was this bad. Trigger warning for abuse and the death of young children.
Fun fact from this article: Congress passed a bill that would have broadly expanded affordable, high-quality daycare. Nixon vetoed it because - you guessed it! - it was too big-government-y.
TW: Rape, violence: In some of the most disturbing and sickening news of the day, New York state police have decided that a 15-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by three boys was in fact not sexually assaulted because both she and the boys are mentally handicapped.
here are four reasons the President’s pre-K initiative faces a tough ride in Congress:
1) It’s expensive. Delivering high-quality pre-K is an investment that pays off in the future – but it’s one that Washington has to pay for now. That’s a tall order in today’s fiscal climate, gives opponents an easy way out (“it’s important, but we can’t afford it”), and redirecting the funds from existing programs such as Head Start creates substantial opposition. The President didn’t outline how this would be paid for.
2) The early-childhood education community is rarely accused of effectiveness. In many ways early-childhood advocates are their own worst enemies. ”They eat their own,” one observer told me today while discussing the President’s proposals. That’s true, despite all the obstacles they have to overcome together, advocates have traditionally had trouble getting on the same page. Splintered support is a liability.
3) There is no center to hold. The basic battle lines are people who think expanding access to pre-K is paramount and those who think improving quality in pre-K is. Underneath the posturing the quality and access caucus is pretty small. That’s thwarted pre-K initiatives in the past and the President has his work cut out for him to change those politics.
4) It’s a hell of an issue. Pre-K enjoys wide-support among the American people. In the through-the-looking-glass world of Washington that can be a liability as much as an asset because politicians sometimes, ‘want the issue.’ With tough midterm elections on the horizon some politicians in Washington who support pre-K might not support it too fast because it’s political gold in a campaign. Wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened on an education issue.
I guess God told them to beat the life out of the Black children first.
This link has excerpts of the Pearl’s book. When you google “to train up a child” you get the names of so many kids who have died by the hands of religious child abusers and murderers who have used the Pearls’ words as a basis for action. Why aren’t the Pearls in jail for what’s IN PRINT, let alone the many children who have died because of them?
If everyone who sees this will contact at least one (or… ALL) of the legislators who took NRA donations, we can start to get the wrong influences out of Congress and create some reasonable gun control measures.
How many children in Chicago have to die? How many more Trayvons and Jordans? How many more movie theaters, malls, temples, and elementary schools need to be shot up for us to realize that the 280 million guns in this country aren’t making anyone safer?
Here’s an idea: Construct a society where child-rearing isn’t a massive sacrifice. Construct a society where people without children aren’t stigmatized as indulgent or selfish. Construct a society where having a kid is just one decision among many — but one that is supported, and doesn’t (at least for women) tie to career stagnation and financial insecurity. The truth is that when women can control their fertility, they do. Some women want to have a lot of kids, and that’s great and should be supported. But most women want one or two, and that should be supported as well. Some want zero. Right now, the incentives to have children are largely social and biological — “family” still largely hinges on having kids, and most people in America grow up with the basic assumption that you’ll grow up and have a baby or two (I certainly did). There are very few economic incentives beyond the long game (Social Security, pension pay-ins, etc) and, at least for women, almost no individual economic incentives.
I can’t verify this translation, but if it’s accurate this is a chilling look at Netanyahu’s plan for the Middle East region over a decade ago. If it’s inaccurate, I’ll remove it and make a public correction in this post. The entire 2001 video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaIQHWfj5f4 - click on “more” to see the English transcript. The portion of the video that takes place AFTER he thinks the camera is turned OFF is what’s featured above.
Netanyahu appears to demonstrate extreme confidence that he can manipulate the United States:
“America is something that can be moved. Moved to the right direction.”
and
“80% of theAmericans support us.“
He also claims that the world will interpret ANY Israeli military action as self-defense:
“the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.”
In the longer video (linked within the text of this post) the typed transcript beneath the video details Netanyahu’s apparent end-run around the Oslo Accords. Exactly whyis the U.S. giving Israel $30 billion a year? To support someone who has an apparent failure to negotiate and subsequently act in good faith?
Land claims can’t be settled with violence. They can’t. Innocent children - from both sides - are being slaughtered. The Israelis seem to think their blockade of Gaza will starve the people into compliance (which it won’t) and they retaliate against the Palestinians’ weak defense by pinpointed attacks on civilian targets (which is barbaric).
I freely admit I don’t know as much about the origins of conflict in the Middle East as I should. I do know the tensions in the region are centuries-old. I do know is that violence - whether it’s as obvious as a rocket or as subtle as starvation - WILL NOT OBTAIN A LASTING AND SATISFYING SETTLEMENT OF ANY DISPUTE. An imprisoned people will fight for survival, and I would expect Israel to understand this better than anyone. When you imprison someone - constrict their movement, starve them, and make conditions unbearable - you WILL evoke a response. I don’t condone rockets being fired at anyone but I do understand the drive to survive.
What concerns me equally is the apparent ease at which Netanyahu claims to have America “in his corner”, so to speak. I resent and oppose that conclusion. I don’t want ANYONE wiped off the map; EVERYONE in that region must stop the aggression and negotiate a lasting settlement. It CAN be done, and the slaughter of innocent civilians CAN and MUST end.
There is NO problem that can’t be resolved when EGOS are controlled.
If this video is accurately and fairly transcribed, I hope this is Netanyahu’s “47%” moment.
Meanwhile, in the US, most people don’t even know that their own military just blew away three young Afghan children. The sad truth is, even if they did know, they wouldn’t really care. There’d be no outpouring onto the streets of people demanding a halt to the air attacks and the drone killings. Only 28% of Americans say they object to America’s drone warfare, though it is clear that drone attacks are leading to the deaths of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of innocent civilians. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, a survey of 20 countries about reactions to drone warfare found that in the US only 28 % of Americans said they disapproved of America’s drone warfare campaign. In countries that are normally America’s allies, like Britain, Germany and Japan, disapproval rates were 47%, 59% and 75% respectively. In the US, the survey found 62 % of Americans actively support drone warfare, giving America the distinction of being the only country surveyed in which a majority of the public supports killing by drone.
The attackers of the three schoolgirls in Pakistan, who have been arrested already, will almost certainly be imprisoned for their heinous crimes. Not so the pilot and the targeting personnel who called in his deadly strike that led to the deaths of three Afghan children. They will come home from the war hailed as “heroes” by any Americans they meet. People will pass them and say, “Thank you for your service” — even though that “service” includes killing little children. I leave it to readers to imagine how they think this impacts on the parents and relatives of the children who were killed by America’s “brave” military. I know though that if a foreign military blew my kids away with impunity and for nothing, they would in that moment create an enemy for life—and Liam Neeson’s character would have nothing on me in terms of my desire to exact vengeance, either. Those befuddled Americans who are still asking, “Why do they hate us?” should think about this a bit.
The denial of justice in sexual assault cases reverberates in terrible ways. Rapists not held accountable continue to rape, thus creating more victims. And survivors are left to feel like their victimization does not matter. That is a great burden to carry, to be a survivor of sexual violence to whom indifference about that shattering breach of agency and safety is communicated in the most contemptuous, self-serving way.
I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it, because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
