frenchmills's Blog

according to those who put Obama's lack of experience as a negative.

The man who should not have been president was elected in the 19th Century. He served in the U.S. House, I believe for just one term -- not more than two, then went back to his law practice, helping the ordinary folks in his neighborhood.

He was nominated by his party to run as senator from his state, but lost.

Then two years later, he won his party's nomination for President, with some stiff opposition within his own party from those who thought he was not liberal enough -- too moderate.

Then he won the election against a popular opponent who had support mainly from Southern states.

Then he became one of the greatest presidents this county has ever had, steered us through one of the most traumatic periods we have ever seen, and his likeness is set in stone on Mount Rushmore.

His name? Abraham Lincoln.

I would then put forth that Mr. Obama's so-called "lack of experience" is really a non-issue.

From an email making the rounds:

 

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'

* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

 * Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
 
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
 
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
 

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with a population of 750,000, become chairman of your state senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
 
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

 

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

 

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible. 

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America 's.
 
* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
 
OK, much clearer now.

 

(and whoever thinks that race isn't involved is a moron)

This from a recent news release from Gov. Blunt's Office, which many Republicans are using to depict Barack Obama as a dictatorial oppressor:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Contact: Jessica Robinson, 573-751-0290

---

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Here's the link to the press release: http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id
=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsi
tem

This was in response to another TV station's news report regarding local Prosecutors (St. Louis City and County, Jefferson County) declaring that they will work to stop basically ads or other material disseminated that contains lies or defamation of character and other such.  There is no suppression of free speech as Gov. Blunt seems to make it seem.

CLICK FOR THE STORY

That Ms. Palin violated the law in using govt email acct (sarah@ci.wasilla.ak.us) for personal political business.

She pressured for the firing of one person for the same thing. Pressuring various groups to support her political aspirations, using the email account of her State office.

per the story here:  CLICK FOR STORY

Crocodile tears here.

Poor thing, so persecuted. Seems she should know persecution.

Takes one to know one, right?

I wish I could like her more, but the problem is she has an outward appearance of such a pure and righteous thing -- and yet, as the emails show, she is quite a piece of work. Her true personality is hidden behind a facade of niceness.

READ ABOUT IT HERE

Our illustrious Republican senator, The Honorable Christopher S. "Kit" Bond, has been pushing for the total reconstruction of I-70 between St. Louis and Kansas City. He wants 4 lanes in each direction. He says the present I-70n is in shambles -- a total poor highway.

Well, we just made our annual trip to Denver along I-70, and I can say that the Missouri portion is just fine -- the surface is excellent. In fact, there was a time when the Missouri section of I-70 was many times better than in Illinois, Kansas and Colorado. I know -- I've traveled it many times to Denver. At one time, Kansas I-70 was so rough and narrow and full of potholes that it was downright dangerous. The Colorado section was not much better.

Then the highway was totally remade in these states, with 2 lane, 2 way stretches at about 45 miles per hour for miles while they worked on the highway. This went on for years.

And now . . .

The highly improved highway is 4 lanes in Kansas in Colorado. It seems, though, that stretches of the Kansas highway were not done right, because it is being torn up again and there are the stretches of 2 way 2 lane highway at 45 miles per hour again.

So here's the thing about Missouri. Why put in an 8-lane highway when Illinois, Kansas and Colorado have 4 lanes. The traffic flows quite well along the 4-lane in the western states. The only problem seems to be between St. Louis and Kansas City, where traffic seems to be heavier. But the rate of speed is still maximum along that highway.

There is quite a problem with building a new, wider highway. The eastern part would be not much of a problem. The landscape is totally flat farmland where expansion would be quite easy. However, a little east of Columbia is where the problems begin. Several miles of commercial property sort of get in the way until you get west of Columbia. Then we have limestone hills that would have to be dealt with -- a little more difficult and expensive than the flat farmland. Then there's the Missouri River Bridge. A massive operation. Cutting into limestone hills and building a totally new bridge. Imagine the expense.

Then the landscape becomes more hilly with more limestone to cut into.

I wonder what it would cost. I think Senator Bond gave a figure of about 6 billion. And usually these preliminary figures are a lot less than the final.

A lot of expense and a lot of inconvenience for drivers. For what? For what really does seem to be an unnecessary project..

My thought is that at most what would be needed is 6 lanes -- and maybe letting the highway return to 4 from Columbia to the bridge. The narrowness and curviness of the highway there (has 55 speed limit tho) slows traffic down, but there is where the most expense per mile is in rebuilding the highway.

But Kit Bond's 8? -- only thing I can think of -- most projects are usually already set in stone years before they come to light. All the deals have been made and people in place. I think he might be embarrassed if his 8-lane highway didn't go through.

It doesn't follow Jules Verne's novel, for sure.  It is set in the early 21st Century, with technology playing a large part in it.

Of course, the technology of note is the REAL-D 3-d of the movie itself, using polarized glasses instead of the usual red/blue.  The movie is only slightly fuzzy without the glasses.  With them on, the 3-D effects do stand out (sic).  Especially smaller items, such as chunks of matter flying across the screen and seeming almost out into the audience, or tentacles or voracious big-teethed, sharp-teethed fish mouths.  With a few sound effects to accompany a particular object jumping out at you, it can cause you to jump.

The story hinges on Jules Verne's novel, but of course doesn't follow the original story line.  Brendan Fraser stars as Trevor, a professor of plate tectonics, and Josh Hutcherson as his nephew, who reluctantly stays over at Fraser's (messy) home.

The university is about to close down the project that Fraser's brother (Hutcherson's father) started because he disappeared 10 years ago and they see no use to the project.

It's just a returning to operative mode of a sensor in Iceland (hints of Verne's novel) and notations in Verne's novel that was left in a box of other belongings given to the nephew that spurs Fraser to explore the Iceland sensor.

From there, it's a series of accidents that propels these two, plus Anita Briem, as Hanna, the daughter of the head of the institute that the brother visited, into the Center of the Earth.

The story there moves from crisis to crisis, much like a  classic cliff-hanging movie, where the heroes almost face disaster and yet are rescued.  It is a fun, roller-coaster ride (a ride in a mine train is added for such effect) throughout the movie from one danger to the next.

I am sure critics will have a problem with this movie, because it has a simple, linear story-line, with not too many surprises.  It would seem that it hingeson the special effects.  But it is what you'd call a fun movie, and one that you can feel comfortable taking children to -- in fact, activity books and such are aimed at young people, with education in mind. 

My only problem is that the movie took a little too long in the setup, and not enough time was spent in the actual adventure in the Center of the Earth.  I feel we could have had more fun with more dangers had more time been spent underground.

But overall it's a good movie.

I was first introduced to Genghis Khan by my high school English teacher Mr. Gundlach. He would stand in front of the class and recount the ways of the Mongols, saying, "He would ride across the steppes of Mongolia and, when he got thirsty, he would get down off his horse, cut the jugular and drink the blood, then get back on his horse and yell, 'CHARGE!'" He recomended the Genghis Khan biography, THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S. I read it with enthusiasm and was fascinated by this man who roise from a slave to become the greatest single ruler the world has ever known.

The Mongol Empire has been a fascination to the entire world -- barbarians, to many standards, that, had it not been for the death of one of Genghis' successors, might have conquered Europe, who, in the person of Kublai Khan, prompted trade with the Far East and spurred Columbus' discovery of the New World. All this from this young child, Temudgin.

The movie, MONGOL, per the movie description, "Recounts the early life of Genghis Khan who was a slave, born as Temudgin in 1162, before going on to conquer half the world, including Russia, in 1206."

Possibly we could call it, an "Eastern Western".

It's hard figuring where to start here in ascribing excellence in this movie: whether with Odnyam Odsuren as the stoic young Temudgin and the plain brown paper scenes against the harsh environment, or with Tadanobu Asano as the equally stoic adult Temudgin against the equally harsh environment, natural and human.  

Or with the story itself, which is no more than basic journalism, no opinion, no embellishing, no favoritism, just telling a story. The sparseness fits. The use of I guess native language, with English subtitles, also adds to the sparseness of the story. The impression is of a rugged people in a rugged landscape, against the equally unforgiving forces of nature and other humans, attempting to survive, maybe thrive and, on the remote chance that a great leader arises, conquer. This sparse telling of the story of a simple, plain individual among a simple plain people, finding simple plain solutions to problems echoes the stories of indigenous Americans, relatives, whose lives were quite similar.

It's easy to understand how a harsh environment and warfare among neighboring tribes shaped the personality that became the feared Genghis Khan.

Excellence marks this movie, from the story-line to the directing to the cinemetography, both close up and landscape, to the acting. In particular, we should note Temudgin's bloodbrother, who brought a contrasting presence in this stoic landscape.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone.

I am not that much different than an Atheist, in that I have ceased to believe in the traditional god(s) as espoused by traditional Christians, Jews, Moslems, and others, and in the accoutrements surrounding, such as angels, demons, Satan, etc.

However, I see another God that has been there all along, waiting to be discovered, and yet, has not been discovered by the bulk of people seeking God.  I feel that those responsible for guiding Christian followers to God have instead done as the Jewish religious authorities in Yeshua's day did, that is, maintained a religious system that hinders people from discovering the true God.

This God, which I name, GOD AS THE UNIVERSE AS AN ORGANISM, has been in existence all along.  Few have recognized this God, though.

One old testament name, though, seems to portray this God pretty well, and it isn't Jehovah-Jirah, or El-Shaddai or any of those.

It is, as I have mentioned numerous times, YHVH, The Tetragrammaton, rendered in King James and others as LORD.  It is all consonants, from a time when Hebrew had no vowels.  This name has persisted without consonants through all the changes to the language.  Certain Christians want to add vowels and made it a name, such as Jehovah, or Yahweh.

A name would diminish the word.  Someone, somewhere, saw this word for what it really was, and maintained it as a "name" for God.  It is, however, more of a description, if even that.  Referring to the Hebrew source word, you garner the meaning, "to exist" from it, from which I further glean the description, "EXISTENCE".  The original people who saw this name for God understood that it meant more than what anyone can see or experience.

It is like the Burning Bush telling Moses to tell the elders of captive Israel that I AM THAT I AM has sent him.  It is the ultimate Existence of Existence.  It is a subtle hint that shouts for those who can hear of what God really is through the eons.

EXISTENCE -- all that exists.

Mull on this a minute.  Everything.  Matter, antimatter, all forces and occurrences from eternity to eternity, all humankind and every thought, word and deed thereof, whether for good or for evil.  This all has been and is God.

All that exists.

This is God.  Remember that the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem contained NOTHING.  No image or anything else.  The Ark of the Covenant was close by, to remind the people of the original contract with god, per the Book of Exodus.

However, God is typified as . . . nothing.

Really, not nothing.  Other temples' holy of holies contained an image of the god housed there.  Jerusalem's Temple did not.

Subtle hint, just as the appellation, YHVH is, that God is more than we can see or experience, that God cannot be imaged.  This is the idea of the first precept (commandment) -- "Thou shalt not make an image of anything to be worshipped", better rendered, as far as I am concerned, as, "I, Existence, your God, cannot be imaged; nothing on Earth on in the Heavens can accurately represent me, for I am all that is and all that is is in me."

Judaism, as far as I know, did not image God; it codified the path to God, when God is all around.  So people trod the codified path, which acted as a tunnel through God, not a path to God.

Christianity, however, decided to image God.  Taking Yeshua (Jesus) and his mother, Miriam (Mary) and Joseph and the disciples, they canonized them into images to be worshipped, and imaged god as resembling Greek and Roman portrayals of Zeus and Jupiter.

They also ignored Yeshua's representation of God as being neutral in human affairs and continued the tradition of a tribal god that would protect their particular band of believers.

Now, I want to ask a question:  What god(s) is/are most believable -- one(s) represented by having human or near human-form and intervening in the affairs of humans (for which there really is no demonstrable data) and favoring one group of humans over others -- or that which is Existence -- that is, whatever you experience and encounter around you -- and is a totally neutral entity, but which you can worship freely by holding sacred whatever you encounter or experience?

Let me say that I have experienced what could be considered the "paranormal", various encounters and personal experiences that lead me to understand that there is something beyond the realm of our physical senses.  I believe that the revelation that I am relating to you is one aspect of these encounters.

It is the god that emerges from classical Christian, Moslem and Jewish thought, not to mention those in other major religions, such as Hinduism, and any imagery that arises from other religions, that Atheists and others reject.  For good reason:  it is a god arising from the mythos of previous religions and pantheons, as mythical as its predecessors:  Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, whatever.

It is an image, rather than an existence.

The basic premise of the God I relate is that it is all around, it is truly infinite.  A major attribute of this God is that it evolves.  Let me use another word -- Logos, translated in the first chapter of the Gospel of John as Word.  The Greek word means, "expression, purpose", to which I have added the synonym, "Intent".

Now, I am entering a realm of thinking that can be beyond comprehension -- and the entire picture is.  We have God as the Universe as an Organism.  The entire Universe.  We have within that Universe, an intent.  This God as the Universe as an Organism ("God" for short) thinks.  The entire Universe.  The entire Organism.  The Universe is the ultimate organism, developing, growing, changing, with intent.  No one can attribute human form or mind or purpose or thought or anything human to this God.  This God has no attributes as we perceive them.  IT JUST IS!  Can you understand that?  No one can fathom this God.

And yet, as we understand the history of this God, from what we understand about it, from the Big Bang through the formation of galaxies and stars and the myriad objects of matter, anti-matter, black holes, dark matter, to the smallest things, parts of atoms and small pieces of matter, and things yet undiscovered by humans, we can see evolution.  Humans, as far as is known, are the highest form of sentience on Earth (other sentient beings have yet to be discovered, yet are likely).  Existence on Earth seems to have been moving to the point at which we now are (and probably beyond).

We see also the development of Human Civilization toward better forms (Democracy, etc), and perceptions broadening and acceptance increasing in Society (although this varies from society to society, and sometimes seems nonexistent).  Humans are becoming better learned in relation to human relations.  Old, archaic, almost prehistoric attitudes are disappearing, mainly, it seems, in Europe (some in the U.S., but not much [witness our government's world view or the penal and court systems]).  This slow, persistent improvement gives me hope that archaic perceptions will eventually dissipate in other parts of the world.

It seems like a race, though, between reasonable perceptions, explanations, and solutions, and the old that still dominate too much of the world (Somalia, various cultures and religions, even our own), between an enlightenment that eventually will bring about the peace we all have hoped for and a new Dark Age that could immerse Humankind into the worst, most critical time in History.

I have to refer back to Europe, though, the period from after the fall of the Roman Empire, to the end of World War II, when competition and nationalism kept that continent in a state of constant war.  The nations' nationalistic fervor fueled many a conflict and made different enemies and different allies at different times.  After the devastation wrought by Hitler's Germany and the resultant response, it seems the European nations left all that behind and seem to be working toward better, broader mutual experience and cooperation in many things.

We in the U.S. also seem to be moving in a more positive direction, many seeing new answers to old questions and concerns.  But many seem to be clinging to old, archaic and untenable "solutions" to these problems.

I see an entire picture, however, of progress no matter how slow, and feel that this will continue.  But sometimes I fail to see how it can.

INTENT --the Universe is filled with INTENT.  I actually feel that way.  And that helps me to maintain some semblance of optimism.  I can see through history the Universe moving from a point to a point, although it is from an eternity to an eternity really -- and yet, within this narrow span of "time" that we can see, I feel that there is that movement.

It is interesting.  I took a test recently to see what "religion" I am closest to.  My views tested as being consistent with the "nature" religions, like Druidism, etc.  Native American thought.  All is all and All is in all.

What is sacred is the immediate surroundings.  Every rock, tree, animal, person.  The ultimate message of God is to hold sacred whatever you experience or encounter, including yourself.  For you are the ultimate of your existence.  You must hold yourself as the most sacred; then hold others just as sacred.  Can you do that?  We all fall short.

See what this God is?  It is an ongoing experience.  Not static as is the old religion, its belief system and its god.

I embrace the God I have attempted to relate here.  No one can even  infinitesimally accurately relate what this God is.  The best any of us can do is experience it.

We need to experience it fully.

The old god doesn't let us do that.

During a rain delay in a Cardinals game last week, a spot aired comparing swinging at a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher and a softball thrown by a female fast pitch softball pitcher.

The girl won every time.

They cited the usual reasons:  pitcher being closer to the batter, different trajectory; however, they made softball seem sort of namby-pamby compared to baseball, with 70 mph pitches compared baseball's 90 +

However . . .

in answer to a question:  What is the fastest pitch measured, and who threw it?

here are the answers:

Eddie Feigner (softball) - Feigner's fastpitch was once timed at 104 mph

also: Joan Joyce. 1958-1966, threw pitches recorded at more than 110 miles per hour, and up to 116 mph, while pitching for the Orange (CA) Lionettes and the Raybestos (CT) Brakettes.

while the best baseball pitch?  :  Nolan Ryan. His fastest pitch ever thrown was clocked at 101.4 miles per hour.

That's the best information I can come up with, from What is the fastest pitch measured, and who threw it? | Answerbag.com

Point is, it would seem baseball people don't want to be one-upped softball, seeing that game as a "girls' game". But if you have ever witnessed a fastpitch game, you see the game quite differently.  Those gals and guys are some of the best athletes, and the game is just as physical as baseball.  I really don't think many people want to bat against many of these fastball pitchers.

Now, that's really playing hardball.

I see the newscasters worrying about how people working outside are going to be able to stand this torturous 86o weather.

What?

My gosh -- what are they going to do when it gets hot?

If people begin thinking that 86 is hot and it's too tough to work outside in this, then what's going to happen when the mercury reaches 90 (as it is predicted this week) or even 95 or 100?  By this kind of a disastrous outlook, people would have to stop working on highways or roofs or other construction work.  Or farming.

Imagine that Hwy40 would take 6 months longer, or that your place of business closes down because the roof couldn't be repaired, or maybe that we get less food because of a shorter work time.

The highways are built, roofs are installed and repaired, farmers till their fields and field hands harvest crops (not all of course, since machines have been invented for many crops), and have been for decades, all in the middle of summer and 90+ and 100+ temperatures.

Let me relate to you some of my own experiences.

Like the time this one guy and I put a shingle roof on a house in 100+ weather -- we'd take turns -- 1 hr. on and 1 hr. off.

Or the time I left a refrigeration company to work for a roofing company.  Went from a freezer at -4 to a roof when the ground temp was 103.

Or the various summers hefting 60+# bales of hay above my head onto a flatbed wagon.

Or the time, when I working in MU's conscientious objector civilian work program and 3 of us took hoes and machetes and chopped 2+" diameter cockleburs and other weeds out of a cornfield on the Missouri riverbottom near Columbia in 100+ weather.

When you have to do it, you have to do it.  There's no sympathy involved.

I grew up without air-conditioning.  Nowadays, every summer, the weather people will remind us of the record setting temperatures around 1954.  I was 10 then.  All I remember is playing outside and not paying attention to the heat.  I do remember getting a nickel sized sun blister on my shoulder.

There have been times and places when you would be castigated if you couldn't hack it in hot weather.

The time I remember best, though, was 1962, when my parents and I (I have to let you know that my parents were both 55 yrs old -- and on this particular occasion my Mother worked harder than I did) went over to the farm my Dad had made arrangements to buy to clear about a half acre of honey locust trees -- not the thornless ones -- those with thorns all over -- 3' thorn branches with 1' branches coming off of them.  My Mother and I threw a rope up on the trees and each of grabbed one end and pulled on the tree while my Dad took a large circular saw on a gas-powered combination mower-saw and cut them down.  We then sawed limbs off and piled them all up with old tires at the bottom to get the fire started.  Then we burnt them.

When we came home, the weather man related that the high temperature for the day was 110o.

Sorry guys, 86o is nothing.

Back about 1962 on the farm I lived at, it happened.

I was in the barnyard on my way to do something -- can't recall what now.  We had dried cornstalks all over the ground that we brought from the cornfield to give the cows something to chew on.

Suddenly, a little whirlwind came up, and grew.  The only way I could recognize it was the cornstalks that it had drawn up in its vortex.  It was about 20 ft in diameter at least.  It then hit the barn and, with a resounding CRASH!!, blew a couple of pieces of corrugated iron roofing off.

And here I was no more than 50 feet away.  Very impressive.

I have just passed it off as a whirlwind -- the sky was clear; there was no severe weather at all.

I also remember passing through Kansas recently and watched huge whirlwinds kick up clouds of dust, ranging a hundred feet or more into the sky.

Response to Missouri State Board of Education¹s Decision To Disenfranchise
St. Louis Citizens for Three More Years ­ From St. Louis Board of Education
President


The state board of education¹s decision to disenfranchise St. Louis citizens
for another three years shows how corrupted and antidemocratic the political
system in Missouri has become.

Not only is the decision void of any reasonable basis, it runs counter to
the very idea of public education, which by its very nature demands public
involvement. In violation of all norms of democratic process and of plain
common decency, the state board of education jumped to a conclusion without
informing either the citizens of St. Louis or their elected representatives
that this decision was on their agenda, much less did they provide an
opportunity for public comment. Under state law, the elected St. Louis Board
of Education is supposed to audit the progress made under the state
appointed board (SAB). Neither DESE nor the state board of education has
asked for any report on the district, nor did they make any effort to have
the SAB comply with state law to provide information to the St. Louis Board
of Education. The fact that they would make such an important decision while
hiding in Jefferson City and without seeking comment from citizens or St.
Louis is but another example of their lack of respect for St. Louis
residents.

While seeking to divorce the public from public schools, the state board
again is rejecting parental involvement in schools ­ four of the seven
members of the St. Louis Board of Education have children in St. Louis
Public Schools; no one on the SAB does.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that such a thoroughly undemocratic
process would arrive at an irrational conclusion. Conditions in the district
have deteriorated over the last year: There is more instability at the top,
the financial progress the district was making has been slowed, and the
district¹s performance has fallen. In ratifying the decision of the SAB to
fire the superintendent so that they can administer the daily operations of
the school district themselves, DESE and the state board have again taken
the position that businessmen with no competence in education should run the
school district instead of trained educators. The state board¹s experiment
in disenfranchising St. Louis is a failure. The experiment in replacing
professional educators with businessmen 2003 was a disastrous failure. Yet
the state board insists on continuing those experiments for another three
years.

The only explanation is political. DESE and the commissioner of education
were fully behind the program of cutting services and turning chunks of the
school system over to private companies when the mayor¹s people ran the
school board. We believe the evidence shows that, when faced with the
prospect of a new board majority that put education first instead of private
profit, DESE altered and manipulated rules in order to justify taking over
the school system so that the state board could protect those private
contracts.

The elected school board just completed a planning process that, with input
from respected educational leaders in the metropolitan community, concluded
that the way to best improve the school district is through the professional
development of teachers and principals, not through private programs sold by
for-profit companies.

We believe that the state board quickly and quietly decided to extent its
control for another three years in order to continue transferring public
funds to private companies for questionable programs. Once again, they have
placed private profits ahead of educational opportunities for our children.

We hope that a new governor and new state assembly next year will clean up
the Augean mess that DESE has become.

That's right. One of the beauties of the City has been (still is some) the convenience, the proximity to what you need. It hasn't been that long ago that people could walk to just about every type of business establishment or entertainment venue.

I grew up partly on the North Side, Hyde Park neighborhood, where you could find a corner market on just about every corner, a small shopping strip on Salisbury Street, and the 14th Street shopping area just a few minutes away. I walked to the Bremen Theater at 19th & Bremen and the Tower Theater at E. Grand and W. Florissant, never it made it to the Salisbury Theater, on Salisbury, near Natural Bridge.

Coming back to St. Louis in the 70's, stores and bakeries were within blocks. We had the Ritz Theater on S. Grand near Juniata, and the Shenandoah, at Grand and Shenandoah. South Grand had everything: clothing stores, pharmacies, barbers, restaurants, night spots, a bakery, meat market, shoe store, specialty stores, a bowling alley, Namendorf's Hallmark Cards (many business moved to the new Zayre Plaze (now Gravois Plaza) when it opened, and failed in competition with the discount stores there. Many remained though and the area thrived quite well.

Several supermarkets existed: A Kroger in the South Grand area, a National at Grand and Sidney, and an A & P a block south, at Magnolia. The National is now a locally owned market, thriving and serving a substantial clientele. A Schnuck's superstore spans an area between Grand and Gravois, also enjoying a large customer base. Small markets persisted into the 90's. Gustine Market. which persisted through at least three owners, just closed some time in the past month.

Still, people can walk to many establishments. Some small markets still thrive, and supermarkets are within walking distance of many people. Quik Trips and 7-11's dot the landscape also, so their convenience is not absent.

 Suburbia was built on the automobile, it seems. The nearest business of any sort is a long walk at best for most people. Getting anywhere to shop or for entertainment takes a several minute drive. The norm is HUGE as far as establishments go, if you know what I mean. Huge shopping centers, huge food stores, huge retail stores, huge barns of home improvement stores, all where most people have to drive several miles to get to them, through heavy traffic and wild drivers, competing for parking spaces. People have to sacrifice personal service for low prices.

 In the City, and some places in the surrounding area, small businesses still thrive, where you can go in, get what you need in a few minutes, and be on your way. Meanwhile, if you frequent the establishment, you get to know the owner -- that's right, the owner is right there in the store -- or get to know the employees, most of whom stay on, The employees know where everything is (naturally, since it is a small establishment).

  Where, in the huge establishments, it seems you never see the same person twice, and it is so impersonal that you can go through an entire round of shopping and not speak to a single human being.

 In the face of increasing gas prices, I personally would think that the trend ought to reverse, with smaller establishments popping up in more places, closer to where people live. Smaller theaters even, almost within walking distance. I like the City because it is what I call, "easy". Not a lot of driving and not a lot of trouble getting where you are going. I can direct anyone to just about any kind of retail establishment.

  Of course, everybody can't move back into the City; but maybe people can begin to take steps to have smaller (maybe owned by indidivuals) establishments set up closer to people. This would serve people a lot better. And there might be other savings: smaller establishments, closer, mean less driving, less traffic, less gas use. Less stress. So people might need less stress relievers. Also, walking to the stores is good exercise. Not so much need for gyms or such.

I am imagining a family walk to go shopping. Everybody together, no radio, no DVD (unless the kids bring their own portable) - maybe even a little conversation. Noticing things along the way like animals, birds, trees, neighbors -- saying hi to the neighbors -- slowing down.

 I think we need this.