It amazes me sometimes how the current Board just keeps moving along in total disregard to the community concensus. We are to believe that our local government knows best in these matters, however what we have is a governing body at odds with its own appointed Planning Commission and the result is complete arrogance.
In an effort to hold back the tide of raising taxes on either citizens or business, one of which is inevitable in the next five years if the County is to be able to offer even the average rate of services throughout the county, the Board continues to approve both new zonings and rezonings applying its pro-growth oriented governance even though we are seeing housing starts slow and homes sales slow down which may result in the largest inventory in the last ten years.
So why the dash to approve these new developments? Elections?
Could it be that the overall sentiment as of late is one of change thus this Fall may represent the first true "change election" Chesterfield has witnessed in quite some time. The Republicans have held a majority throughout this latest economic uptrend and bull market for residential and commercial developers throughout the country. It begs the question as to whether these developers are pushing these developments to either get them done before the election or to lock in requirements and proffers (or in some cases lack there of) now in hopes of developing the areas slowly during the downtrend of the housing markets and then bring them faster along when the market turns around. Either way it does not seem to be in the best interests of the County.
The latest is a "modification" to the Watkins Centre commercial/residential development along the Route 60 corridor at Route 288. I recall a town hall meeting where both Supervisor Don Sowder (R) and State Senator John Watkins (R) addressed the needs for this center and the benefits for the County to have such a "gateway" development. Less than two months after groundbreaking ceremony, the master plan has been changed by the Board.
Evidently, the current BOS did not feel the need to readdress changes with the public nor hold another town hall meeting before review the proposals by Rebkee Partners. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Kelly Miller was quoted as saying that the measure was "departing from the original zoning". Was it not the original zoning that the community was briefed on at the town hall meeting?
The area in question was orignally zoned industrial. However, the BOS unanimously approved the change to allow retail to be developed on the sites 16 acres adjacent to Midolthian Turnpike. Rebkee will now have these 16 acres in addition to its original 35 acres of approved retail/offcie space at the area designated as Shoppes at Westchester.
No one spoke in opposition, largely due to the fact that people have expressed that they were uninformed of any potential changes to the original plan. The Board Strikes Again.
Its time we in the community Strike Back. Please see the post concerning the debates and town hall meetings scheduled in the coming months for the candidates for the Board to meet with citizens.
The Board can quickly get measures like this past and yet is stalled with solving the Upper Swift Creek Plan, has little plans to solve excessive use of school trailers, is approving developments without formally addressing roads and infrastructure other than to say that the developments are providing land set aside for schools, seeks to implement line item oversight of the school board budget and continues to stay behind the curve of health and saftey protocals regarding food safety certification requirements for business providing food to the public.
I am not sure which amazes me more; that the Board continues to act in this manner or that our community continues to allow them to.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
"Concert for Virginia Tech"
With a fairly large contingent of Virginia Tech alumnus within the Chesterfield community it is my hope that the "Concert for Virginia Tech" scheduled for Sept. 6 at Lane Stadium will be embraced and supported by all of us.
There has been some criticism of the concert, in large part from representatives of the families who lost loved ones back in April, claiming that Virginia Tech is somehow exploiting the trajedy.
Vincent Bove, representing families, had the audacity to claim that Virginia Tech is turning this into a "vaudeville show". I could not disagree more. The University was approached by Dave Mathews Band attempting to organize a free concert in support of the survivors of the trajedy as well as to honor those that were lost. To portray the University has having alterior motives in an attempt to "gain publicity".
I think the trajedy itself elevated Virginia Tech's visibility to such enormous proportions that the University does not need to have a free concert for the betterment of itself. The concert is for the student body and is scheduled in a timely manner at the beginning of the school year as a means of attempting to move past and begin a new for the upcoming school year.
While I would have liked to have seen more diligence in terms of the performers (ie Nas and questionable lyrics) I am a firm believer that there is indeed a time for everything under God.
There is a time to mourn, but certainly there is also a time to sing and dance and four months after the trajedy maybe the University has a right to celebrate and embrace the lives of those who have survived as much as we should mourn the ones we lost.
There has been some criticism of the concert, in large part from representatives of the families who lost loved ones back in April, claiming that Virginia Tech is somehow exploiting the trajedy.
Vincent Bove, representing families, had the audacity to claim that Virginia Tech is turning this into a "vaudeville show". I could not disagree more. The University was approached by Dave Mathews Band attempting to organize a free concert in support of the survivors of the trajedy as well as to honor those that were lost. To portray the University has having alterior motives in an attempt to "gain publicity".
I think the trajedy itself elevated Virginia Tech's visibility to such enormous proportions that the University does not need to have a free concert for the betterment of itself. The concert is for the student body and is scheduled in a timely manner at the beginning of the school year as a means of attempting to move past and begin a new for the upcoming school year.
While I would have liked to have seen more diligence in terms of the performers (ie Nas and questionable lyrics) I am a firm believer that there is indeed a time for everything under God.
There is a time to mourn, but certainly there is also a time to sing and dance and four months after the trajedy maybe the University has a right to celebrate and embrace the lives of those who have survived as much as we should mourn the ones we lost.
Katherine Waddell Ahead of the Curve
Huguenot Bridge Replacement Project:
While we all continue to atch the fallout from the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities and pray for the families and the city of Minneapolis, I think it is important to sit back and reflect on those in our own community we trust with our safety and that of our children.
While our local government is presently "challenged" in solving our road crisis in Chesterfield, I want to point out that the Independent Delegate Katherine Waddell representing the 68th District in the House of Delegates has been fighting to upgrade our infrastructure since her election in 2005. It was her determination that secured the neccessary resources to replace Huguenot Bridge by 2011.
Waddell campaigned on reforming and a rebuilding of infrastructure initiative that included rebuilding the Huguenot Bridge. She fought to get funding in the VDOT Improvement Plan for replacing the 58 year old bridge and secured it this Spring. The Richmond District will receive 248 million in the VDOT Plan and some of this will go to the Huguenot Replacement Project.
We have to be reminded that alot of measures need visonaries. Up until the last few days I am sure many of Waddells political opponents felt the bridge a minor issue within the Transportation Plan before the General Assembly. Waddell, however, knew better.
Leadership is about being out in front. Its not about chasing policy or polls. I think we all can agree that on this issue Katherine Waddell has gotten it right and continues to represent the district with the baggage of the parties.
30,000 cross the Huguenot Bridge each an every day and though thats not nearly as many as the bridge in Minneapolis I am fairly confident that the residents their now wish someone had pressed State Government harder to get the bridges updated.
Waddell remains ahead of the curve in the General Assembly.
While we all continue to atch the fallout from the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities and pray for the families and the city of Minneapolis, I think it is important to sit back and reflect on those in our own community we trust with our safety and that of our children.
While our local government is presently "challenged" in solving our road crisis in Chesterfield, I want to point out that the Independent Delegate Katherine Waddell representing the 68th District in the House of Delegates has been fighting to upgrade our infrastructure since her election in 2005. It was her determination that secured the neccessary resources to replace Huguenot Bridge by 2011.
Waddell campaigned on reforming and a rebuilding of infrastructure initiative that included rebuilding the Huguenot Bridge. She fought to get funding in the VDOT Improvement Plan for replacing the 58 year old bridge and secured it this Spring. The Richmond District will receive 248 million in the VDOT Plan and some of this will go to the Huguenot Replacement Project.
We have to be reminded that alot of measures need visonaries. Up until the last few days I am sure many of Waddells political opponents felt the bridge a minor issue within the Transportation Plan before the General Assembly. Waddell, however, knew better.
Leadership is about being out in front. Its not about chasing policy or polls. I think we all can agree that on this issue Katherine Waddell has gotten it right and continues to represent the district with the baggage of the parties.
30,000 cross the Huguenot Bridge each an every day and though thats not nearly as many as the bridge in Minneapolis I am fairly confident that the residents their now wish someone had pressed State Government harder to get the bridges updated.
Waddell remains ahead of the curve in the General Assembly.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Chesterfield County Forums Announced for Fall Election
Fall Election update:
As August approaches many of the campaigns will formally begin to kick in and get rolling. Some of the campaigns for Board of Supervisors have already begun to canvass the county to drum up support going into the Fall. Candidates will get some support in presenting their respective visions for the County and their districts in the form of District Forums.
These forums will give residents an opportunity to hear the views first hand from each of the candidates for the BOS as well as School Board posts.
The following schedule has been announced:
Dale District: 10/04 LC Byrd
Clover Hill: 10/11 Clover Hill High
Bermuda: 10/18 Thomas Dale High
Matoaca: 10/25 Manchester High
Midlothian 11/1 Midlothian High
Each forum will last two hours and will begin at 7PM.
If you would like to submit questions to the forum planning committee you mau do so @
chesterfieldcandidatesforum@comcast.net
Please make sure your questions arrive before the Sept. 1, 2007 deadline.
As August approaches many of the campaigns will formally begin to kick in and get rolling. Some of the campaigns for Board of Supervisors have already begun to canvass the county to drum up support going into the Fall. Candidates will get some support in presenting their respective visions for the County and their districts in the form of District Forums.
These forums will give residents an opportunity to hear the views first hand from each of the candidates for the BOS as well as School Board posts.
The following schedule has been announced:
Dale District: 10/04 LC Byrd
Clover Hill: 10/11 Clover Hill High
Bermuda: 10/18 Thomas Dale High
Matoaca: 10/25 Manchester High
Midlothian 11/1 Midlothian High
Each forum will last two hours and will begin at 7PM.
If you would like to submit questions to the forum planning committee you mau do so @
chesterfieldcandidatesforum@comcast.net
Please make sure your questions arrive before the Sept. 1, 2007 deadline.
Accidents Waiting to Happen in Chesterfield
Ever wondered why your insurance rates may not be coming down as fast as you would have liked or why it getting more expensive to insure that teenage driver in Chesterfield. Well,
AAA has released 10 places (intersections)in the Richmond area you are most likely to be involved in an accident:
6 of those 10 locations are here in Chesterfield County.
The following intersections are the most dangerous here in Chesterfield: (accidents)
1. Jeff Davis and West Hundred (74)
2. Midlothian and Courthouse (62)
3. Hull Street and Courthouse (59)
4. Midlothian and Woolridge (59)
5. Hull Street and Old Hundred (52)
6. Hull Street and Genito (45)
AAA has released 10 places (intersections)in the Richmond area you are most likely to be involved in an accident:
6 of those 10 locations are here in Chesterfield County.
The following intersections are the most dangerous here in Chesterfield: (accidents)
1. Jeff Davis and West Hundred (74)
2. Midlothian and Courthouse (62)
3. Hull Street and Courthouse (59)
4. Midlothian and Woolridge (59)
5. Hull Street and Old Hundred (52)
6. Hull Street and Genito (45)
Monday, July 16, 2007
Iraq: The Debate continues
After Sunday mornings Meet The Press, I felt it appropriate to hit the blogosphere and try to get a handle regarding the future of the Iraq debate as far as the blogosphere. Of course, like picking up the RTD or the New York Times you basically know what your gonna get before you start for the most part.
Even in the blogosphere you can be hard pressed to find those blogs that really demonstrate varying points of view on any given issue. We all like to be around those that think like us, see things like us and want things they way we want them and at times thats what you will find in alot of blogs. Unfortunately that is wants wrong with politcis today; our inability to listen not hear what the other side is proposing or advocating.
It seems as if you are Republican you find yourself gravitating towards those and if your a Democrats you find yourself going towards those. Me. I like to roll with all of them. The only real way I believe you can understand how to make the "whole" better is to understand the "parts"better. At least thats my philosophy.
So I ventured over to the thread on the debate being aired on Meet the Press at Raising Kaine (RK) a "progressive" blog, sorry you have to read previous posts to get my gripe with that word, and one of the more highly participated sites for Virginia politics. Of course, I was not going to come across to many like minded folks (thtas independently moderate)but found some great commentary of the debate in Iraq from some posts like those of JPTERP, who guided me to some really good sources for undertsanding the Iraq question. **See Raising Kaine Meet the Press thread at www.raisingkaine.com You find your rather left of left element on the Iraq issue for the most part, no not those wearing pink, but nonetheless see little value in our efforts in Iraq and seem dead bent on getting us out of Iraq without a comprehensive plan for the region. Needless to say I join in and get rather trashed in the process but its all good. Us independents sleep well at night.
Being labeled as a Bush apologist rather quickly was quite amusing. You see when you make independent minded statements or questions regarding the future of the region and the realistic results of any withdrawal you suddenly become a supportor of the Bush policy. Its the old if you do not see it the way I do then your with them guys over there mentality.
I spent hours going over photos taken in the provinces of Iraq by serviceman and so much of what they portray makes me proud to have both served and to be an American. They are not pictures of the war being portrayed on MSNBC, CNN or Fox but one that inspires the values that we say we stand for. Water projects, markets, building hospitals and clinics, building bridges and roads we had destroyed from the air. We ARE rebuilding that country. NO one says we have to. We could just leave. Any many folks think that that is exactly what we should be doing is leaving. Leave to fight the war on terror elsewhere, on the fringes of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistans borders wherever as long as its not Iraq.
Apologists I am not. But since we are talking apologies where are they from those who for political gain supported this war and who now tell us well they really did not know the full picture or the intel was bad or heck did not even read the intel? It really peeves me that people like Obama, Kucinich, Paul, Gravel and others get marginilized by mainstream media who seem dead set on electing Clinton and if the left is to be believed and all is lost in Iraq than those folks who they marginilize got it right and the top of the ticket got it completely wrong. Its okay for Clinton to get it wrong but not any of the others who authorized this war. Wheres her accountability? Oh but its so much easier to legislate than to lead is it not?
A couple thread comments:
Blogger Newport News Dem : Repubilcans "spewing the same Al Queda beat them there so they don't follow us home"
Okay so whats the difference from fighting in Iraq or some other Middle eastern front? Do people really believe that if we pullout to the fringes or simply re-allocate forces that terrorist will not seek us out. Al-Queda has come there, mostly from the ranks of those Shia in Saudi Arabia for many reasons like the fact that they oppose the Sunni governments like Saudi Arabia and do not want Iraq to be another Sunni state. Sure they are fighting us there, but if you had'nt notice they are also killing those who do not share their beliefs within their own culture.
Again Newport News Dem: "Al Queda is once again being used to scare Americans into supporting a failed policy" in Iraq
Do we not believe that Bin Laden is doing the exact same thing in reverse. His he not using the US as the focal point for his mission as a means to increasing his ranks. People forget that the hatred for the US goes back to when....could it be the support/creation of Isreal. Very little to do with policy more to do with history. While many Amercians are worried about terror I do not think they look at Al Queda the same way as say we did in 2001. Who is to be given credit for that. Who is to be given credit for no further attacks on our soil? It is not my contention to defend the executive, but somewhere something is working in order to preserve our security.
I read all the time on liberal blogs that Al Queda is simply waiting to do something really big and thats the reason why we have not been attacked again. It is as if the effort of those in our governmental agencies is minimized because the reason why weve been safer is solely because the terorists are waiting not because we are preventing them. This rationale also does not support logic concerning Iraq. If the so-called "follow us" home theory is accurate than whould they not be compelled to do just that once we leave Iraq. I mean we are there now so theycame there to hit us or at least hit what we represent. Whouldn't make since that if we were to remove the target on the ground (us by their view) in Iraq that they to would simply shift operational objectives. Wait. You mean to say Al Queda has operational objectives in Iraq? No? Well if they do not than what has been their true objective? Spain, Indonesia,Britain? No I think it is safe to say that most of the operations are focused on Iraq.
So that brings us full circle to the idea that we are fighting them there so we will not be fighting them here. And exactly who is best suited to be doing this fighting? Who is best suited to handle the fall-out of an attack from an emergency perspective. Is it our cities or is it our military? Who is it that this government determined to place in harms way ? Is it those that are trained to do so or those citizens simply pursuing happiness? The fact remains that when an attack is successful our military does not shut down, it is trained to respond. Should another attack happen here I fear you cannot name me one city that would not completely shut down.
In my eyes thats where we have failed. Not really in Iraq but in securing our borders, ports , and creating a system of response where the information is disimilated to the population. If you reside in Chesterfield, do you know the emergency plan? Have you seen the Homeland Security literature on how to set your family up with a communication plan? Most I am afraid have not. We are ill prepared for another attack and thats the trajedy. Not the conflict in Iraq. I view our role in Iraq no different then a quasi-peacekeeping force between the extremists and the peace and freedom seeking Muslims at this point while the country comes into its own. Its simply now a matter of sides, truth be told. Though we want them to determine their destiny I doubt we would or could allow a pro-Iranian or shia controlled state there. Now thats just naive. I am sure.
Lowell a commentator on RK put it simple that "Al Queda has no better friend than George W. Bush"
I guess he means that Bush by staying in Iraq is embolding the enemy. That his policy has given new life to terrorism and terror in the world is simply manifested itself because of the failures in Iraq by the Bush administration. I was having some coffee at Starbucks last week and a friend posed a very good question:
"If I told you that by staying the course in Iraq we would experience the status quo in terms of terrorism here in Amercia (zero since 9/11) or by withdrawing from Iraq there was at least a 25% chance for Amercia to experience another terrorist attack, which would you prefer?."
Yeah, talk about deep. We'll of course I would take the status quo. He then later got me with a "How do you think the present day political partisanship would have dealt with the assumption We Dropped the Bomb to Save Lives that was used to end WWII." At this point I need to upgrade to expresso.
I never looked at Iraq in that fashion. Maybe Bush sees Iraq as the "bomb" that is saving American lives. Most people do not feel he is the brightest kid in the schoolyard but it could be so. Maybe that is how he has been approaching this thing all along. Whatever his approach there is certainly a large force here at home opposing it. And yet the opposition, including every Presidential hopeful has yet to devise a way to lead are way out it. Simply having a plan to withdrawl by a certain date and implementing diplomatic measures does'nt seem to me to be a real long term solution or a even practical. A withdrawal I believe will almost certainly stand that region up on end and I really believe that Isreal will be forced to defend itself alot more agrressively and I think that takes this thing to a whole different level.
If we withdraw I think you can forget about a Palestine state as well. Isreal we seek more room for security for its people as it sees turmoil in Lebanon, politcial upheaval in Eqypt to the south and then further instability in Iraq with upon of withdrawal continued Shia insurgence backed by Iran.
It's just not as simple as bring the troops home. Thats campaign rhetoric. We have some serious problems and of course the Iraq Solution is one of them but we need serios people to solve them right now and they just are not stepping up to the table. I keep looking out for that FDR, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln to rise above politics and move us forward....maybe he is out there but we just have not found him yet.
The debate will indeed continue.
Even in the blogosphere you can be hard pressed to find those blogs that really demonstrate varying points of view on any given issue. We all like to be around those that think like us, see things like us and want things they way we want them and at times thats what you will find in alot of blogs. Unfortunately that is wants wrong with politcis today; our inability to listen not hear what the other side is proposing or advocating.
It seems as if you are Republican you find yourself gravitating towards those and if your a Democrats you find yourself going towards those. Me. I like to roll with all of them. The only real way I believe you can understand how to make the "whole" better is to understand the "parts"better. At least thats my philosophy.
So I ventured over to the thread on the debate being aired on Meet the Press at Raising Kaine (RK) a "progressive" blog, sorry you have to read previous posts to get my gripe with that word, and one of the more highly participated sites for Virginia politics. Of course, I was not going to come across to many like minded folks (thtas independently moderate)but found some great commentary of the debate in Iraq from some posts like those of JPTERP, who guided me to some really good sources for undertsanding the Iraq question. **See Raising Kaine Meet the Press thread at www.raisingkaine.com You find your rather left of left element on the Iraq issue for the most part, no not those wearing pink, but nonetheless see little value in our efforts in Iraq and seem dead bent on getting us out of Iraq without a comprehensive plan for the region. Needless to say I join in and get rather trashed in the process but its all good. Us independents sleep well at night.
Being labeled as a Bush apologist rather quickly was quite amusing. You see when you make independent minded statements or questions regarding the future of the region and the realistic results of any withdrawal you suddenly become a supportor of the Bush policy. Its the old if you do not see it the way I do then your with them guys over there mentality.
Its like lets hold the Republicans in the Assembly accountable for the Transportation Package but not the Governor who endorses it kinda thing. Both sides are guilty of this tact.
Look if believing that most Americans simply want us to "win" in Iraq makes me an apologist so be it. The fact remains that this conflict had an overwhelmingly high approval rating as did Bush once real combat operations ceased and the country was thought to have been secured. People forget that three years later after being bogged down in political turmoil.
Had the story ended there how would we be portraying Bush? Sadly it did not end there and the longer we have been there the longer lower the approval ratings get. Amercians do not oppose the War in Iraq, Amercians oppose LOSING the War in Iraq. We have seen this before. Amercians like to win and win big, fast. Think first Persian Gulf War, think Panama, think Grenada and operations like those. Now think of events like say Somalia and the political disaster that was.
How would we have been as a country during WWII had that war, especially the War in the Pacific been covered like present day conflicts. It scares be to think about how different our world would be, had those seeking isolation from the world were able to manifest itself into something greater through the countless portrayal of the horrors of that war. We call it mainstream media in this country but I fail to see little that makes coverage mainstream.
I spent hours going over photos taken in the provinces of Iraq by serviceman and so much of what they portray makes me proud to have both served and to be an American. They are not pictures of the war being portrayed on MSNBC, CNN or Fox but one that inspires the values that we say we stand for. Water projects, markets, building hospitals and clinics, building bridges and roads we had destroyed from the air. We ARE rebuilding that country. NO one says we have to. We could just leave. Any many folks think that that is exactly what we should be doing is leaving. Leave to fight the war on terror elsewhere, on the fringes of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistans borders wherever as long as its not Iraq.
Apologists I am not. But since we are talking apologies where are they from those who for political gain supported this war and who now tell us well they really did not know the full picture or the intel was bad or heck did not even read the intel? It really peeves me that people like Obama, Kucinich, Paul, Gravel and others get marginilized by mainstream media who seem dead set on electing Clinton and if the left is to be believed and all is lost in Iraq than those folks who they marginilize got it right and the top of the ticket got it completely wrong. Its okay for Clinton to get it wrong but not any of the others who authorized this war. Wheres her accountability? Oh but its so much easier to legislate than to lead is it not?
A couple thread comments:
Blogger Newport News Dem : Repubilcans "spewing the same Al Queda beat them there so they don't follow us home"
Okay so whats the difference from fighting in Iraq or some other Middle eastern front? Do people really believe that if we pullout to the fringes or simply re-allocate forces that terrorist will not seek us out. Al-Queda has come there, mostly from the ranks of those Shia in Saudi Arabia for many reasons like the fact that they oppose the Sunni governments like Saudi Arabia and do not want Iraq to be another Sunni state. Sure they are fighting us there, but if you had'nt notice they are also killing those who do not share their beliefs within their own culture.
Again Newport News Dem: "Al Queda is once again being used to scare Americans into supporting a failed policy" in Iraq
Do we not believe that Bin Laden is doing the exact same thing in reverse. His he not using the US as the focal point for his mission as a means to increasing his ranks. People forget that the hatred for the US goes back to when....could it be the support/creation of Isreal. Very little to do with policy more to do with history. While many Amercians are worried about terror I do not think they look at Al Queda the same way as say we did in 2001. Who is to be given credit for that. Who is to be given credit for no further attacks on our soil? It is not my contention to defend the executive, but somewhere something is working in order to preserve our security.
I read all the time on liberal blogs that Al Queda is simply waiting to do something really big and thats the reason why we have not been attacked again. It is as if the effort of those in our governmental agencies is minimized because the reason why weve been safer is solely because the terorists are waiting not because we are preventing them. This rationale also does not support logic concerning Iraq. If the so-called "follow us" home theory is accurate than whould they not be compelled to do just that once we leave Iraq. I mean we are there now so theycame there to hit us or at least hit what we represent. Whouldn't make since that if we were to remove the target on the ground (us by their view) in Iraq that they to would simply shift operational objectives. Wait. You mean to say Al Queda has operational objectives in Iraq? No? Well if they do not than what has been their true objective? Spain, Indonesia,Britain? No I think it is safe to say that most of the operations are focused on Iraq.
So that brings us full circle to the idea that we are fighting them there so we will not be fighting them here. And exactly who is best suited to be doing this fighting? Who is best suited to handle the fall-out of an attack from an emergency perspective. Is it our cities or is it our military? Who is it that this government determined to place in harms way ? Is it those that are trained to do so or those citizens simply pursuing happiness? The fact remains that when an attack is successful our military does not shut down, it is trained to respond. Should another attack happen here I fear you cannot name me one city that would not completely shut down.
In my eyes thats where we have failed. Not really in Iraq but in securing our borders, ports , and creating a system of response where the information is disimilated to the population. If you reside in Chesterfield, do you know the emergency plan? Have you seen the Homeland Security literature on how to set your family up with a communication plan? Most I am afraid have not. We are ill prepared for another attack and thats the trajedy. Not the conflict in Iraq. I view our role in Iraq no different then a quasi-peacekeeping force between the extremists and the peace and freedom seeking Muslims at this point while the country comes into its own. Its simply now a matter of sides, truth be told. Though we want them to determine their destiny I doubt we would or could allow a pro-Iranian or shia controlled state there. Now thats just naive. I am sure.
Lowell a commentator on RK put it simple that "Al Queda has no better friend than George W. Bush"
I guess he means that Bush by staying in Iraq is embolding the enemy. That his policy has given new life to terrorism and terror in the world is simply manifested itself because of the failures in Iraq by the Bush administration. I was having some coffee at Starbucks last week and a friend posed a very good question:
"If I told you that by staying the course in Iraq we would experience the status quo in terms of terrorism here in Amercia (zero since 9/11) or by withdrawing from Iraq there was at least a 25% chance for Amercia to experience another terrorist attack, which would you prefer?."
Yeah, talk about deep. We'll of course I would take the status quo. He then later got me with a "How do you think the present day political partisanship would have dealt with the assumption We Dropped the Bomb to Save Lives that was used to end WWII." At this point I need to upgrade to expresso.
I never looked at Iraq in that fashion. Maybe Bush sees Iraq as the "bomb" that is saving American lives. Most people do not feel he is the brightest kid in the schoolyard but it could be so. Maybe that is how he has been approaching this thing all along. Whatever his approach there is certainly a large force here at home opposing it. And yet the opposition, including every Presidential hopeful has yet to devise a way to lead are way out it. Simply having a plan to withdrawl by a certain date and implementing diplomatic measures does'nt seem to me to be a real long term solution or a even practical. A withdrawal I believe will almost certainly stand that region up on end and I really believe that Isreal will be forced to defend itself alot more agrressively and I think that takes this thing to a whole different level.
If we withdraw I think you can forget about a Palestine state as well. Isreal we seek more room for security for its people as it sees turmoil in Lebanon, politcial upheaval in Eqypt to the south and then further instability in Iraq with upon of withdrawal continued Shia insurgence backed by Iran.
It's just not as simple as bring the troops home. Thats campaign rhetoric. We have some serious problems and of course the Iraq Solution is one of them but we need serios people to solve them right now and they just are not stepping up to the table. I keep looking out for that FDR, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln to rise above politics and move us forward....maybe he is out there but we just have not found him yet.
The debate will indeed continue.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Chesterfield School Board: Charting a New Path?
Chesterfield County School Board (CCSB)
Its been a pretty full three months for the CCSB. The School Board has faced the challenges of dealing with a Board of Supervisors withdrawing funds that were to go for school board budget sanctioned Pre-K programs, which the school board made happen anyway, then a fairly large debate with residents over the teachings of "ID", creationism and evolution followed by the latest requests by resident groups seeking the offering of Bible school classes.
There has been quite a debate in the blogosphere over these issues. See Bacons Rebellion's blog for some really interesting work done on the subject. But I find that much of the debate is coming from those seeking to oppose The Family Foundation, a group of local residents seeking to make room in the Chesterfield county school system's curriculum for the study of "ID" along with evolution in the classrooms. While I am not going to go down the road of getting into some scientific or philosophical debate, a let the supposed experts do that, I do want to address some of the items coming out of the debate.
Whether you support the idea of teaching broad curriculum or not it is frustrating that when the issue of creationism or anything with even the slighest smack of religion makes everyone so uncomfortable. I believe much of the discomfort comes the very religious beliefs we all share. I know I for one growing up it was not acceptable to "question" the religious teachings of the church let alone challenge them. Well years have passed and times have changed and now looking back I never thought as child I would witness a female Episcopal bishop. Just knew the church would never endorse it. So when we are sitting in non-church settings and we hear that controversial word "creation" people just simply begin to shift in their seats. We do not want to bring our beliefs into the public rhelm. Fact is, the law prohibits the teaching of religious beliefs in schools. An issue of exposure I guess.
Lets face it, we want our children to believe what we want them to to a large extent. I was born into my belief systems how about you? I did not examine too much, I simply followed the crowd to the Lord in my youth like most kids I guess. I spent much of my childhood in public schools of Chesterfield before finally attending private school my last two years of high school. In retrospect, I grew more those last two years than all of my public education. Why you say? Exposure to a world that may not see it the way I do, exposure to examination, exposure to critical thinking, exposure to debate....alas exposure to the beginnings of real informed citizenry.
This brings us back to the CCSB. On balance our schools are some of the best in the nation hands down. We have some of the best teachers and educators around. Many of whom have come from Virginia insititutions of higher learning and yet there seem to be concerns in their ability to mediate measures as Shawn Smith of the Chesterfield Science blog refers to as "problematic debates". Smith contends that shall ideas or thoughts like creationism or "ID" be taught teachers will somehow be endorsing or promoting "alternative views" and thus in terms of "ID" merely "teaching the controversy". Afterall, its not science.
This contention puts me on familiar ground, ie the church. There can be no place for ideas that may influence or persuade that are in conflict with our particular view. The beauty of freedom of religion is really the fact that you determine via your own free will what you are going to accept or believe or hold to believe before YOUR God. That said what is at issue is whether we want our children exposed to "alternative views" or not regardless of whether its creationism or something else.
What I find fault with is the direction of those who would place this in the rhelm of "science" for the debate. Fact remains as soon as you get to college you are exposed to just about everything under the sun in this world and frackly some it is scary and radical in nature to tell you the truth. Yet, somehow in those short months after high school graduation and entering college every child is we hope well prepared for whats to come. Often times they are not. Often we find our children hard pressed to handle the socio and political aspects of liberal college life. Is this due to not being exposed to true critical thinking? Not sure but it certainly plays a part. While not science why can this not be taught within other areas; history, philosophy, etc.
There will always be controversy over what to teach and what not to. I recall the history of the Holocaust not being taught in many public schools, recall the curriculm of students in the City of Richmond quite different than out in the counties before bussing, and I even recall differences in how the South was portrayed in the classrooms during the study of Civil War depending upon the choice of textbooks. We teach our kids exactly what we think we should teach our kids based on our core life experience. Was there any school district celebrating and teaching the Civil Rights movement in 1970?
Every few years or so when the school board must order and select new textbooks a new paths have to and should be explored. Should "ID" be taught in our schools as "science"? Probably not. But why not teach philosophy, history of ethics, critical thinking or even the history of religion. You see I believe there are two forces at odds here; those that feel schools instill "belief" and there by in someways fear it and those who see the schools as a path to greater learning and citizenry. Learning and believing are two very different things.
I "learned" all about creationism (6 credits worth) in college but that certainly does not mean I "believe" it. Its very sad that while this debate goes on our children who may not have ever heard of "ID" are now logging time on the internet getting the low down on what they are not allowed to get in school. Times are changing my fiends and its time for a new path. Would we rather have our educators moderate these "alternative views" or some internet Waco type primadonna providing absolutely ill conceived rhetoric.
Will this simply be another sex education in the schools dilemma? Are the lines the same? Though there is legal precendent precluding the teaching of religion there is none preventing elective being offered regarding the history of Christianity or even Islam. God forbid our youth try to understand those histories, heck it might expalin alot in the world today don't you think?
It very well could be time to chart a new path.
Its been a pretty full three months for the CCSB. The School Board has faced the challenges of dealing with a Board of Supervisors withdrawing funds that were to go for school board budget sanctioned Pre-K programs, which the school board made happen anyway, then a fairly large debate with residents over the teachings of "ID", creationism and evolution followed by the latest requests by resident groups seeking the offering of Bible school classes.
There has been quite a debate in the blogosphere over these issues. See Bacons Rebellion's blog for some really interesting work done on the subject. But I find that much of the debate is coming from those seeking to oppose The Family Foundation, a group of local residents seeking to make room in the Chesterfield county school system's curriculum for the study of "ID" along with evolution in the classrooms. While I am not going to go down the road of getting into some scientific or philosophical debate, a let the supposed experts do that, I do want to address some of the items coming out of the debate.
Whether you support the idea of teaching broad curriculum or not it is frustrating that when the issue of creationism or anything with even the slighest smack of religion makes everyone so uncomfortable. I believe much of the discomfort comes the very religious beliefs we all share. I know I for one growing up it was not acceptable to "question" the religious teachings of the church let alone challenge them. Well years have passed and times have changed and now looking back I never thought as child I would witness a female Episcopal bishop. Just knew the church would never endorse it. So when we are sitting in non-church settings and we hear that controversial word "creation" people just simply begin to shift in their seats. We do not want to bring our beliefs into the public rhelm. Fact is, the law prohibits the teaching of religious beliefs in schools. An issue of exposure I guess.
Lets face it, we want our children to believe what we want them to to a large extent. I was born into my belief systems how about you? I did not examine too much, I simply followed the crowd to the Lord in my youth like most kids I guess. I spent much of my childhood in public schools of Chesterfield before finally attending private school my last two years of high school. In retrospect, I grew more those last two years than all of my public education. Why you say? Exposure to a world that may not see it the way I do, exposure to examination, exposure to critical thinking, exposure to debate....alas exposure to the beginnings of real informed citizenry.
This brings us back to the CCSB. On balance our schools are some of the best in the nation hands down. We have some of the best teachers and educators around. Many of whom have come from Virginia insititutions of higher learning and yet there seem to be concerns in their ability to mediate measures as Shawn Smith of the Chesterfield Science blog refers to as "problematic debates". Smith contends that shall ideas or thoughts like creationism or "ID" be taught teachers will somehow be endorsing or promoting "alternative views" and thus in terms of "ID" merely "teaching the controversy". Afterall, its not science.
This contention puts me on familiar ground, ie the church. There can be no place for ideas that may influence or persuade that are in conflict with our particular view. The beauty of freedom of religion is really the fact that you determine via your own free will what you are going to accept or believe or hold to believe before YOUR God. That said what is at issue is whether we want our children exposed to "alternative views" or not regardless of whether its creationism or something else.
What I find fault with is the direction of those who would place this in the rhelm of "science" for the debate. Fact remains as soon as you get to college you are exposed to just about everything under the sun in this world and frackly some it is scary and radical in nature to tell you the truth. Yet, somehow in those short months after high school graduation and entering college every child is we hope well prepared for whats to come. Often times they are not. Often we find our children hard pressed to handle the socio and political aspects of liberal college life. Is this due to not being exposed to true critical thinking? Not sure but it certainly plays a part. While not science why can this not be taught within other areas; history, philosophy, etc.
There will always be controversy over what to teach and what not to. I recall the history of the Holocaust not being taught in many public schools, recall the curriculm of students in the City of Richmond quite different than out in the counties before bussing, and I even recall differences in how the South was portrayed in the classrooms during the study of Civil War depending upon the choice of textbooks. We teach our kids exactly what we think we should teach our kids based on our core life experience. Was there any school district celebrating and teaching the Civil Rights movement in 1970?
Every few years or so when the school board must order and select new textbooks a new paths have to and should be explored. Should "ID" be taught in our schools as "science"? Probably not. But why not teach philosophy, history of ethics, critical thinking or even the history of religion. You see I believe there are two forces at odds here; those that feel schools instill "belief" and there by in someways fear it and those who see the schools as a path to greater learning and citizenry. Learning and believing are two very different things.
I "learned" all about creationism (6 credits worth) in college but that certainly does not mean I "believe" it. Its very sad that while this debate goes on our children who may not have ever heard of "ID" are now logging time on the internet getting the low down on what they are not allowed to get in school. Times are changing my fiends and its time for a new path. Would we rather have our educators moderate these "alternative views" or some internet Waco type primadonna providing absolutely ill conceived rhetoric.
Will this simply be another sex education in the schools dilemma? Are the lines the same? Though there is legal precendent precluding the teaching of religion there is none preventing elective being offered regarding the history of Christianity or even Islam. God forbid our youth try to understand those histories, heck it might expalin alot in the world today don't you think?
It very well could be time to chart a new path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
