It’s reassuring that President Bush Monday dismissed as “wild speculation” reports in The New Yorker magazine and other media that he is considering a military strike — including the use of nuclear bunker-buster bombs — against Iran to disable its nuclear facilities.
As a negotiating strategy, no doubt President Bush wants to send the Iranian regime the message that he is dead serious about a military strike if other diplomatic options fail. The question is, how serious is he? Military action truly should be a last-ditch option; many military analysts think it would be highly risky and almost certainly invite retaliation in any number of ways.
It’s interesting that reporter Seymour Hersh (in photo) asserts that the administration won’t talk to the Iranians, who are willing. Hersh told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that it’s amazing “not only that the president doesn’t [want to talk to Iran] but there’s no pressure on him from Congress or anybody else.”
What do you think is going on, bloggers? Much ado about nothing? Or is military action against Iran inevitable?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
The Kansas State Board of Education is meeting at Wichita North High School beginning at 10 a.m. Tuesday. One agenda item is the quest by board member Kathy Martin (in photo) to mandate abstinence-only sex education.
Martin argues that “abstinence until marriage is the best thing for young people physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually.” No argument here. But given that most teens won’t wait that long, a responsible sex ed class should emphasize abstinence but also provide accurate information about ways to help prevent pregnancies and diseases (as is done in “abstinence-plus” education).
But the biggest concern about Martin’s plan is that she wants to tie abstinence-only instruction to accreditation, thereby forcing all districts to comply. Why shouldn’t local school boards be able to decide the best approach for their communities? Last month, you may recall, the board also said that districts should require their sex ed classes to be “opt in” — meaning that parents have to sign a release before students can take the classes — instead of “opt out.”
Do board conservatives no longer care about local control?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, who is running for governor, recently told a small group of Republicans in Olathe that no “true Republican” can oppose the proposed Taxpayer Bill of Rights. But Barnett’s colleague Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, has called TABOR “bad public policy” and “a disaster looking for a place to happen.” And the concerns of many in the GOP-heavy business community, as well as in social services and higher education, helped persuade TABOR proponent House Speaker Doug Mays, R-Topeka, not to pursue a vote on the issue this legislative session. Is Barnett really suggesting that all those opposed to TABOR need to find another party?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
One concern about the federal No Child Left Behind Act that is difficult to talk about without appearing elitist is that schools may shift so many resources to helping low-performing students that they will neglect their top students — the future scientists, engineers and other experts we need to compete in the global economy. This may already be happening. According to a recent New York Times article: “In 1998, 25 states reported that 80 to 100 percent of their local school districts provided services to gifted students; last year, there were 22 states reporting that level of services.”
Jane Clarenbach, public relations director of the National Association for Gifted Children, told the Times: “It’s important to help the kids who are struggling, but it’s important to challenge the kids on the other end, too.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Some suspect nothing the Legislature does on K-12 this session will satisfy the lawyers representing plaintiff districts in the school-finance lawsuit, in particular Wichita attorney Alan Rupe. He had even suggested the House-passed three-year, $633 million plan fell short because of its phase-in. But as House leaders started rethinking that plan after its failed vote in the Senate, Rupe seemed to endorse it in the Lawrence Journal-World: “In terms of how we’re analyzing what is done, the House plan would have been a really good-faith effort that we would’ve evaluated.” That plan also has earned the governor’s praise. The Senate needs to reconsider it — on its own merits, not on how its passage would affect the gubernatorial hopes of Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Kansas isn’t the only state with periodic debates about its state slogan. New Hampshire is now arguing about a new tourism motto — “You’re going to love it here” — that lots of people, including the governor, hate.
They want to replace that slogan on various highway signs with New Hampshire’s traditional gritty motto, “Live Free or Die.” But other residents think that’s too, well, harsh.
Nonsense. What’s wrong with a slogan that actually stands for something and reflects the state’s history? If they want to update it for the hip-hop generation, here’s an idea: “Live Free or Die Tryin’.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
