While it's true that the Hopkins School District does seem to have a misguided sense of reality, it's important to remember a couple things...
1.) Where we stand and why we're here...
Hopkins, because of the success of the last referendum, has reached the state mandated maximum of how much it can spend on educating students, paying teachers, and funding classes. As a result it?s actually illegal for Hopkins to spend any more on education. In previous years, Hopkins was able to maintain its curriculum because of a community so devoted to supporting its schools, that other cash strapped school districts would probably kill for it. Case in Point: Hopkins voters have passed every referendum that the school district has asked for dramatically buffering the effect of budget cuts, while nearby districts like Osseo have been forced to drastic cuts to curriculum. Due to inflation, a shrinking tax base to draw from, and other sources, simply maintaining the level of education opportunity possible in recent years has become impossible.
2.) Why are we spending it the way we are...
State regulations divide each districts funding into two "pots," with a maximum limit set on both intended to equalize education opportunities. On the left you have education and on the right you have "bricks and mortar" (building maintenance). Because of state law, Hopkins is quickly running out of money in the education pot that the last referendum provided, while at the same time, the "bricks and mortar" pot is closer to full than ever. The reason that more isn't spent on education is because state law explicitly forbids the transferring of funds between the two pots. The results are the frivolous building projects that the school plans to undertake in the coming months/years. The only exception to this is the cafeteria. The current cafeteria is in violation of state regulations that dictate that for every student there must be X amount of space. Because the High School Student body continues to grow so rapidly, the cafeteria has to be remodeled or rebuilt regardless of whether the school wants to or not. The football field, the new auditorium, and the seemingly endless amounts of new computers to name a few are indeed examples of unnecessary spending. With regards to the AP tests, those we're supplemented solely by the state, not the district and were an early target of a state government eager to cut costs.
3.) Where are the priorities?
Schools have been forced to change their priorities from constantly improving the quality of their education to simply maintaining as much of their curriculum as possible. In Hopkins, the continued extent of Bricks and Mortar spending has been shifted to the forefront now that the district has no where to turn to keep educational programs; but seems to have more money than it knows what to do with to spend on building maintenance and/or improvement. Hopkins has reached the end of one of the longest leashes in the state of Minnesota and is beginning to feel the effects that other districts have been forced to deal with for years. Hopkins students have had it pretty good as far as education goes and despite the budget cuts will continue to enjoy a substantial advantage in opportunity compared to other schools. The bottom line, Hopkins is going to have to learn to learn with less money.
Question: Our school keeps cutting and cutting back academic materials and teachers. i.e. double the AP fees, loss of teachers, higher athletics fees, etc. Yet we throw money at a multi-million dollar frivolous artificial football field (I would know, I play football), and we have plans to build a huge auditorium and totally rennovate the cafeteria. Bottom line, we'll have HHS kids who are dumb as rocks, but they'll be well-fed rocks, who have nice chairs to sit in for the semi-annual school gatherings. I know money doesn't equal knowledge, but I ask you people, where are the priorities?? If we can build these great faucilities, but can't educate the kids to do anything but clean those faucilities, I see a downward spiral to doom in the near future.
-Erik Greene
Erik, that was a great argument. You are especially right that America must not be percieved as weak in the Arab world. Most of the protestors have no idea how diplomacy really works in the Middle East. I suggest everyone read From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. It is not about Iraq, but the Lebanese Civil War, a conflict that ended 10 years ago. The book gives a great glimpse at the Middle Eastern mentality. In the middle east, force is respected, and weakness is taken advantage of. Another phrase I hear a lot is "inspectors work, war doesn't." Something a kin to this is posted at the school. What that phrase seems to be forgetting is without the threat of American and British force, those inspectors would never had gotten into the country in the first place. The Middle East is not Europe. Being pacifistic is suicide in that region.
So I said I was waiting for a convincing enough argument from either side. I think I just found it. Thanks, Erik. Why can't more conservatives be this intelligent?
I feel that I need to come clean to people on my feelings on the pending war. I sent this out as an email a couple days ago, so if you've already read this, congratualtions. The "protest" at school the other day only solidified my feelings that war is inevitable, and the anti-war advocates are flat-out wrong, or misinformed. If you can think of another "anti war campaign" justification, please let me know.
Lie #1. There are other alternatives
When anybody says this, they cannot come up with specific answers, or offer idealist jokes. The only way to handle this as of now is march in, armed, and let Saddam choose to fight or give in to free elections faucilitated by the US/UN.
Lie #2 We do not need to fight.
We have come too far to let a third world oppressor stand us up. If we do not invade, we are telling other 3rd world rebels in the middle east that it if you stand up to us, you will win. It is 10 times better to put down a single country than to have to fight the entire hostile middle east, where the casualites on both sides would grow exponentially
Lie #3 We will kill too many innocent civilians
Yes, civilians will die. It is a factor of war. However, on the grand scheme of things, it is better to accidentally take some in this war than to allow this American-hate to fester, and have many other wars present themselves. Can't you see that we need to put these people down, and then we will be much more peaceful than this pacifist attitude will bring us, thus bringing much more hostilities and subsequent death? For any overthrow, some cost will be assessed. However, we must act now, while the penalties will be at a minimum
Lie #4 We're only going for Gas/economy
Never has any government, media, or anything besides random speculation said that we are going for oil. Not even the LIBERAL MEDIA. what does that tell you? even those who hate Bush and all he stands for realize that it is not about oil. While this might boost our economy, see previous reasons, and then realize that it is not the primary factor here.
Lie #5. The Iraqi people do not want to be liberated
Wow. I really want to be oppressed, don't you??? You think it's the actual people who are saying they don't want to be freed, and not Hussein puppets? Next Lie, please
Lie #6 Bush is an idiot for this, and everything else he does
Think what you want about him, but he is surrounded by some of the smartest people alive today, and they all have a big say in what he does/says. He mainly just presents their plans to the US people. He's not the mastermind behind all this
And Finally,
Lie #7 (your name here) made a difference at the rally/protest today.
No, all you did was dissend from the country's planned course of action, with YOUR BEST AT HEART. The government is of, by.for the people. There is no ruling class. These people do what is best for you. If that had been an Iraqi protest, you'd all be murdered like cattle. Nice though, hm?
Really, when everything is considered, war is the only option. I am all for peace whenever possible, but here it is totally impossible. If we back down, all the rest of the Middle East will see us as fragile, and will stand like Iraq. That is not good, in case you cannot draw your own conclusions here. Imagine this scenario everything times 6. Interesting mental picture, eh?
-Erik Greene
They say a picture's worth a thousand words
Well I beg a thousand pardons for each word I've used for personal gains
But the letters that float through my head, demote my sentences
Could never be contained by your simple picture frames
Please stop acting like the first thing that pops into my mind is war. No one in their right mind would ever choose war over peaceful resolution. However, the time for diplomacy has long since past. Over a decade ago, following the war in the Gulf, diplomatic efforts began to ensure that the world would never need to go to war over Iraq again. Sadam was unwilling to pay the price for his attempted conquest of Kuwait and according to the "Second report under resolution 715" (UN Security Counsel) Sadam had already begun to evade or disregard essential steps toward peace as early as October 1992, barely two years after the end of the conflict, was written using information gathered from UN and US forces in Iraq. In the next six years, UN and US personnel documented sporadic Iraqi co-operation and compliance with UN mandates. UNSCOM, the division of the UN responsible for finding out if Sadam was complying, was beginning to face significant resistance from the Iraqi. This lead to documented attempts by Iraq to prevent the inspectors from doing their job. All culminating in 1998 when the Iraqi Government officially ordered the removal of the inspectors even though they were UN mandated. In the year before their removal, UNSCOM inspectors had been organizing the dismantling of weapons that Sadam had built since the Gulf War. Sadam has no regard for the world around him. He has no regard for the welfare of his own people as seen by his use of chemical weapons on his own populous and his use of Iraqi Civilians as human shields. To him, whether his people eat or starve is irrelevant, as he's preoccupied with the state of his military. The man has no intention of going away peacefully and every intention of evading the consequences of his actions. He has systematically defied every attempt to prevent the very crisis that we find ourselves faced with today. There is a very fine line between national sovereignty and global stability. Once a nation crosses that line it becomes the responsibility to contain the rogue nation and take steps to prevent it from ever happening again. The Iraqi Government under Sadam has again become a clear and present danger to global stability. We are back to square one. The situation in Iraq is no better off than it was ten years ago because Sadam Hussein has and will continue to refuse to accept the consequences of his decisions. If I am wrong and war is avoidable, then we are all the better knowing that the problem in Iraq was solved without conflict. However I have seen little to indicate that a peace deal is possible, and even less to suggest that Sadam would abide by the terms of such a deal if it was reached. The world's dealings with Sadam have been met with little more than manipulative lies and broken promises from Baghdad. For over a decade, Sadam has had the opportunity to improve the condition of his people. Instead, he's slaughtered them by the thousands (some reports place this figure in the millions). Sadam has had the chance to reconcile with the global community, instead he has done nothing but provoke them. War is a terrible thing, but Sadam, through his own madness, has deliberately steered both Iraq and the world into this conflict. Sadam's actions over the last 11 years have proven his sees peaceful intervention as a method of manipulating the global community. The US has is finally taking steps to end the decade long appeasement of a madman by enforcing the UN resolutions Sadam regarded as irrelevant and speaking to him in the only language he understands: force.
Saddam Hussein WILL NOT GIVE UP POWER.
He has nothing to lose, EXCEPT HIS POWER.
Honestly, how can a U.N.-sponsored democratic election depose a man who has shown time and time again that he is more than willing to arrest, torture and kill suspected "enemies of the state" to protect his power? I say that he has to be removed from power by force. Whether or not this requires going to war is debatable, however, FORCE IS NECESSARY IN THIS SITUATION.
Some say that Saddam's transgressions against the Kurds are limited and/or insignificant compared to the harm we, the United States, are committing. Saddam has killed as many as 3.5 MILLION Kurds. That's more than half as many Jews as were killed in the Holocaust. Honestly, if you can just stand back and say that killing the equivalent of the entire population of the Twin Cities Metro area is alright, and you can live with yourselves, then by all means do so. I, however, believe that now (actually twelve years ago) was the time for action. Saddam and his fascist regime must be deposed, as he poses a direct threat to not only the people of Iraq and Kurdistan, but, depending on what he's hiding, the entire world.
... the walkout did draw attention to a senseless war. However, if the main intent of the protest was to demonstrate the senseless nature of the whole situation, it could have been carried out much more effectively. Students skipping 20 minutes of school... how senseless and shocking! What we need is a return to 60s-era demonstrations, where protesters weren't afraid to counter a situation with an equal and opposite reaction. Take Hoffman, for example. The guy used the greedy nature of the stock market to essentially shut it down for a day: he went up above the trading floor and dropped a bunch of dollar bills down. The investors, in a fit of greed, panicked and dove after the money, basically shutting down trading for a day. The world saw Hoffman's point in one small, yet brutally simple act. Similarly, the anti-war movement should find some way to demonstrate the true absurdity associated with a war on Iraq. Like I said earlier: demonstrators should focus on effective free speech, not just banding together like a gaggle of geese whenever the hell they feel like it.
And Paul... Paul, Paul, Paul. After stumbling over your horrid grammar and wrapping my mind around your fallacious logic, I've come to the conclusion that you're a dork. While I essentially agree with you, that the walkout was a bomb, you seem to think that this justifies your stance as a "war hawk." As one with liberal philosophies (not necessarily liberal political ideologies) I can see no situation in which people with ideas akin to mine have deemed the right anything close to an "anti-christ." Those of us with liberal leanings aren't shocked that there are people who disagree with us. We've been shown that all too many times already. What we're shocked at is that those who don't agree with us can dismiss such a weighty matter as if it were yet another bill to pay, or what color shirt to buy. Maybe war is the answer, I don't know. I sure hope it isn't, but I haven't decided yet. That's what the liberals are all about: actually thinking, considering, and analyzing before making an important decision.
On one side you had a bunch of radical leftists giving speeches that any kindergardner could come up with, like: Speaker, "War is Bad!"; Crowd, "Yeah!"
On the other side you had a bunch of people who actually were pushing for war, hoping it would come. "Nuke Iraq," how stupid is that? Who actually pushes for a war? That is a sign of true stupidity.
Jesse, you seem to be no different than the protestors, probably even worse. You would rather go and appease Sadam than confronting the fact that we are dealing with one bad mother fucker. According to you, the only bad thing he ever did was "kill a few kurds." How about over 100,000, and he didn't just shoot them, like he has done to thousands of his other countrymen, he gassed them! He used the one of most horrid weapons known to man to kill not only his enemies, but elderly, women, and little children. He also slaughtered thousands of Shiite muslims, as well as executing those in his inner circle. This includes several of his own son-in-laws. In the last 6 months, he has executed scores of his own generals. Do not fool yourself, Sadam is not a nice guy, and he is a brutal, EVIL dicatator.
Another one your two step plan for world peace, Jesse, is to give Iraq its dignity back. I agree completely. How can Iraq possibly have dignity while Sadam is in power? When Sadam is gone, and when Iraqis are able to choose their own destiny, then it will be on the road to getting dignity. By the way, the reason that Iraq is required to defend themselves with outdated troops, is because Sadam has had a history of aggression. He has attacked five of his neighbors and he was the first person in 50 years to use weapons of mass destruction of any type. YOU are not in second grade! Stop pretending that Sadam is Mr. Rogers! You know very little about the history of the middle east, and even less about its culture. The only thing that Sadam understands is force. That's the way the game is played in the Middle East. The only way that you will ever be able to get a MADMAN like Sadam Hussein to cooperate and play nice is to threaten him.
I love the morons that are in a furious uproar about how horrid the walk out was and what a utter failure it is, but oh wait . . . the walkout accomplished its goal and that was to draw awareness to a nonsensical war. "Publicity stunt that crashed in the hanger." Sorry but your blog kind of ruined your whole entire arguement because the fact is that by commenting on the protest you are acknowledging its exsistence and it impact upon you and therefore admitting how much of a success it truly was. Oh and Paul people who believe that members of the third world nation are inferior as well as kicking the assess of Australians as well as killing French people, I would say that there is a pretty good comparision to you and the "anti-christ" and then I see no reason to not treat you like the anti-christ. And also I, being a liberal/ 3rd partier, am not shocked that a lot of the people in this nation don't agree with me, because most of the people in this nation are incredibly pretentious and bigotted, instead I am appalled that most of the nation doesn't agree with me, in believeing that a human life is worth more to than a machine to kill a man with different colored skin, salutes a different flag, or speaks another language.
