Finally, the New Jersey Supreme Court has issued a ruling that it should have handed down years ago: It recognized that half of the Garden State’s poor children live outside of the 31 Abbott districts.
With this recent decision, none of the Abbotts will receive less than the swollen base amounts which they have regularly obtained from the state. The clock is not being turned back; nor is the cash spigot to the Abbotts being shut off. Instead, the increasingly growing flow of supplemental dollars which New Jersey no longer has is simply being ratcheted down, leaving some of it to be redirected to New Jersey school districts that are just as deserving.
The high-pitched, partisan rhetoric which began decades ago circa 1976 has resulted in an on-going tug of war between core cities, suburbs, and edge cities. The exclusionary demands of Abbott proponents have been and continue to be based on the assumption that ever-enlarged pots of gold are the sole solution to the learning challenges within the Abbotts.
There is no sustained, serious discussion by Abbott proponents of the role that a stable and nurturing home environment plays in the educational and societal formation of young minds. The compelling argument that a successful family is – in most cases – the predominant motivating source of educational outcomes remains conveniently tucked away behind a curtain of denial.
Shoveling cash into school buildings, supplies and salaries is much easier than helping to reverse the deteriorated status of family life which is at the root of New Jersey’s educational problems in many communities. It’s much easier for politicians and judges to give palliative treatment to symptoms rather than to remedy the causes.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
In Memoriam
(Photo by Dick Bergeron, Sayen Gardens, Hamilton, NJ)
Today, the quiet, somewhat somber weather seems to be appropriate to the event; that is, setting a day aside to remember the sacrifices made by all U.S. servicemen and women – past and present – who gave so much of themselves for this nation and for what it represents.
It may also be a good time to call a halt to the self-imposed, self-flagellation of the American character emanating from within the Beltway. We are not a perfect country and have a long way to go: Yet, as I assess the modern world, America’s position in it, and try to place the American experiment in its proper perspective within the long sweep of history, I don’t see many close competitors. I wish that those governing this nation in the highest places along the corridors of Washington would pause this weekend and internalize these thoughts.
Reminder: Bridgewater Mayor, Patricia Flannery, sent out a recent email that American Legion Post #327 is sponsoring a parade and “service festivities for our armed services on Monday, May 25.” It starts at 11:00 a.m. and will follow a route along Old York Road, terminating at Ardmaer Park where a memorial service will take place.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Congress Continues to Sidestep Major War Decisions
The recent exchange of words between House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Leon Panetta, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, concerning detainee interrogation techniques reminds me of just how spineless some members of Congress can be when it comes to taking a stand on what they do and why they do it.
Today, tucked inside the pages of a regional newspaper was a short article about a Rutgers University professor who just lost his case in Federal Court. The professor had sued to have the 2003 invasion of Iraq declared unconstitutional. He claimed that only Congress has the right to declare war. He is, of course, correct.
Pelosi’s squirming about what she knew concerning alleged torture techniques and this lawsuit vividly underscores that most members of Congress will do whatever it takes not to commit one way or the other about do-or-die decisions – the most notable of which is war.
Ever since 1950, the U.S. has fought three major conflicts and is now fighting two– and not a single one of them with a declaration of war from the Congress: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, and Iraq II. For political reasons that emit a malodorous smell, Washington’s U.S. legislators of those wartime periods sidestepped their responsibility on the question of declaring war. They went along with mere “authorizations” or “resolutions.”
One might think that declarations of war are only for the warlike. You know – those right-wing nuts. But the real warlike action of Congress in those circumstances was to throw the baton from Capitol Hill to the White House, thereby abdicating its Constitutional responsibility on this most extreme of issues.
Since the Korean War began in 1950, any President with enough moxie can apparently arm-twist Congress to his obeisance. Any wonder that President Barack Obama is now able to increase war-zone troop levels seemingly at will?
Today, tucked inside the pages of a regional newspaper was a short article about a Rutgers University professor who just lost his case in Federal Court. The professor had sued to have the 2003 invasion of Iraq declared unconstitutional. He claimed that only Congress has the right to declare war. He is, of course, correct.
Pelosi’s squirming about what she knew concerning alleged torture techniques and this lawsuit vividly underscores that most members of Congress will do whatever it takes not to commit one way or the other about do-or-die decisions – the most notable of which is war.
Ever since 1950, the U.S. has fought three major conflicts and is now fighting two– and not a single one of them with a declaration of war from the Congress: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, and Iraq II. For political reasons that emit a malodorous smell, Washington’s U.S. legislators of those wartime periods sidestepped their responsibility on the question of declaring war. They went along with mere “authorizations” or “resolutions.”
One might think that declarations of war are only for the warlike. You know – those right-wing nuts. But the real warlike action of Congress in those circumstances was to throw the baton from Capitol Hill to the White House, thereby abdicating its Constitutional responsibility on this most extreme of issues.
Since the Korean War began in 1950, any President with enough moxie can apparently arm-twist Congress to his obeisance. Any wonder that President Barack Obama is now able to increase war-zone troop levels seemingly at will?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama Won’t Release Photos
Last week, in what appeared to be a surprising reversal of his prior public position, President Barack Obama stated that he will now block the release of dozens of photos reportedly showing terror suspects being questioned under not-so-friendly interrogation methods.
These EIT’s – “enhanced interrogation techniques” – call to mind the furor which resulted after the release of pictures showing the treatment of detainees by American interrogators in Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison. We all know of the worldwide revulsion to which that led and of the hatred of America which it engendered, especially in the Muslim world.
The President’s purported reasons for changing his mind is that making public these previously unreleased, classified photos would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and would jeopardize U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military is strongly opposed to their release.
But the really compelling speculation is just why President Obama has chosen this moment to alienate a very large segment of his supporters by challenging the ACLU-inspired court decision which ordered the release of the interrogation photos.
Here’s my take:
President Obama is scheduled to be on an overseas trip in early June. Some of his stops will be in Buchenwald and Dresden; another will be in France to commemorate D-Day. But there is another very sensitive venue – Egypt.
This is why I believe he has now chosen to challenge the release of those photos: On June 4th, on Egyptian soil, President Barack Obama will follow through on a campaign promise to deliver a major speech to the Muslim world. In his delivery, he is expected to focus upon America’s relationship with Islam.
Think about it: If he had released those photos in May and then flown to Egypt to deliver that speech just a few weeks later in early June, the Abu-Ghraib-like reaction to those photos would have been at its peak. Not a very favorable environment in which to try to convince Muslims that we are nice guys trying to co-exist!
Each and every decision made in Washington is thoroughly scrubbed for its political impact. The President’s decision about not releasing those photos is barely dry from that scrubbing.
Note: You can read the ACLU’s reaction at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html
These EIT’s – “enhanced interrogation techniques” – call to mind the furor which resulted after the release of pictures showing the treatment of detainees by American interrogators in Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib prison. We all know of the worldwide revulsion to which that led and of the hatred of America which it engendered, especially in the Muslim world.
The President’s purported reasons for changing his mind is that making public these previously unreleased, classified photos would “further inflame anti-American opinion” and would jeopardize U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military is strongly opposed to their release.
But the really compelling speculation is just why President Obama has chosen this moment to alienate a very large segment of his supporters by challenging the ACLU-inspired court decision which ordered the release of the interrogation photos.
Here’s my take:
President Obama is scheduled to be on an overseas trip in early June. Some of his stops will be in Buchenwald and Dresden; another will be in France to commemorate D-Day. But there is another very sensitive venue – Egypt.
This is why I believe he has now chosen to challenge the release of those photos: On June 4th, on Egyptian soil, President Barack Obama will follow through on a campaign promise to deliver a major speech to the Muslim world. In his delivery, he is expected to focus upon America’s relationship with Islam.
Think about it: If he had released those photos in May and then flown to Egypt to deliver that speech just a few weeks later in early June, the Abu-Ghraib-like reaction to those photos would have been at its peak. Not a very favorable environment in which to try to convince Muslims that we are nice guys trying to co-exist!
Each and every decision made in Washington is thoroughly scrubbed for its political impact. The President’s decision about not releasing those photos is barely dry from that scrubbing.
Note: You can read the ACLU’s reaction at http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Ribbon Cutting at Bridgewater's New Municipal Complex
The photo shows Bridgewater officials enjoying a light moment at the ribbon cutting ceremony held last week, May 7, at the new Bridgewater Municipal Complex on Commons Way. Mayor Patricia Flannery stands behind Township Council President Patrick Scaglione.
To the left is Council member Howard Norgalis, with Michael Hsing, barely visible, next to him. Bob Albano stands smiling to the right. Councilor Matthew Moench was unable to be present for the photo op.
This observance formally launched the new police and court facilities which are now completely functional. The administration building is still under renovation. A Township email advised that, “A more formal grand opening will be held once the entire project is complete in 2010.”
Township representatives gave tours of the police station and of the Municipal Court and meeting rooms. I was quite impressed with Bridgewater’s new operational headquarters. The police station is extremely functional and appears to be highly secure – you won’t want to fool around there.
The court facilities will also serve as the venue for Township Council and other meetings. The Court and Meeting Room area is quite imposing and much larger than the old facilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)