[Vision2020] DARE to speak the truth
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Wed Feb 25 11:14:20 PST 2009
I would share your opinion of video game addiction.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Dave tiedye at turbonet.com
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:40:25 -0800
To: vision2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] DARE to speak the truth
> I don't understand how the DARE program can preach abstinence and then
> set up activities for the kids where they give them lots of drugs and
> let them stay up all night playing video games (another drug I would
> argue). My boys had a lot of fun in Insomnia Outbreak though, it just
> gave me quite the snicker when I found out it was payed for by DARE money..
>
> Dave
>
>
> Bill London wrote:
> > DARE, like abstinence-only sex education, sounds great to older,
> > conservative voters.....but the real question is ... do these programs work?
> > Do young people respond to these messages and alter their behavior?
> > The answer now, after years of effort and years of study, is nope.
> > BL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > To: "Warren Hayman" <whayman at roadrunner.com>; "Sue Hovey"
> > <suehovey at moscow.com>; <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
> > <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:03 PM
> > Subject: [Vision2020] [Spam 5.59] Re: Subject change to "Was it Necessary
> > toUse theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> >
> >
> >
> >> D.A.R.E is a good program. The idea behind it is to say no to a dare.
> >> Roger
> >> -----Original message-----
> >> From: "Warren Hayman" whayman at roadrunner.com
> >> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:13:36 -0800
> >> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com, "Sue Hovey" suehovey at moscow.com,
> >> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> Subject: [Spam 5.59] Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary
> >> to Use theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> >>
> >>
> >>> So we can get rid of the DARE program in the school district? Great idea!
> >>>
> >>> Warren Hayman
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >>> To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>; <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
> >>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:34 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use
> >>> theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Sue
> >>>> The mentality behind issuing a dare is harmful, just as is the
> >>>> mentality
> >>>> of casting shame on being an snitch, or stoolie. A dare is a challenge
> >>>> to
> >>>> some ones bravery, like you are a coward if you don't accept. This can
> >>>> get
> >>>> kids in a lot of trouble and should be something teachers are fighting
> >>>> against. In reality rejecting a dare takes more courage than accepting
> >>>> one.
> >>>> Roger
> >>>> -----Original message-----
> >>>> From: "Sue Hovey" suehovey at moscow.com
> >>>> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:03:25 -0800
> >>>> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com, donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com,
> >>>> vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use
> >>>> the
> >>>> AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I sent this to Donovan. I didn't dare you to do anything....I don't
> >>>>> care
> >>>>> whether you read Hershey's book or not...And why, pray tell, is it
> >>>>> shameful
> >>>>> for me to issue a dare to him? Are your standards for teachers
> >>>>> somewhat
> >>>>> more skewed than for other such ordinary folk? He didn't respond
> >>>>> anyway,
> >>>>> so
> >>>>> we'll never know whether he decided to read it. And the word is
> >>>>> bearing.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sue H.
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >>>>> To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey at moscow.com>; <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>;
> >>>>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:50 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Shame on you Sue as a teacher for issuing a dare. I may or may not
> >>>>>> read
> >>>>>> Hershey's book. A dare would have absolutely no baring on it.
> >>>>>> Roger
> >>>>>> -----Original message-----
> >>>>>> From: "Sue Hovey" suehovey at moscow.com
> >>>>>> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:12:03 -0800
> >>>>>> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to Use the
> >>>>>> AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. I agree, it did end the war quickly--in a matter of days.
> >>>>>>> 2. And if the bombs hadn't been dropped, how much less intact
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> Japan been on Sep 1, 1945?
> >>>>>>> 3. It did that. And we had committed to the goal of unconditional
> >>>>>>> surrender.
> >>>>>>> 4. No, no, no....it did not.
> >>>>>>> 5. But they didn't back out of Germany....And they were already
> >>>>>>> developing nuclear weapons.
> >>>>>>> 6. Well you got me there & I was living in Texas then, but Bentson
> >>>>>>> wasn't the U.S. Senator from Texas until quite a bit later, so I
> >>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>> don't believe this happened. During the Korean war I think our
> >>>>>>> senators
> >>>>>>> were LBJ and Tom Connally.
> >>>>>>> 7. Maybe so, maybe not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Go ahead and read Hershey's book. I double dare you. You may not
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> convinced, but you will have another perspective to chew on.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sue H.
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: Donovan Arnold
> >>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Sue Hovey
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:45 PM
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sue,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It was necessary to drop the bomb for several reasons.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1) It brought a quick end to the war
> >>>>>>> 2) It kept the rest of Japan intact
> >>>>>>> 3) It gave us an unconditional surrender, which is what the
> >>>>>>> Allies swore to do
> >>>>>>> 4) It limited Casualties on both sides of the war
> >>>>>>> 5) It showed Russia that we have the bomb, and will use it,
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>> back out of Germany and Western Europe.
> >>>>>>> 6) The aftermath of the A-Bomb, its horrible impact on
> >>>>>>> people,
> >>>>>>> helped Senator Benston-D Texas, convince the Senate to block
> >>>>>>> General
> >>>>>>> MacArthur's attempts to end the Korean War by dropping 50 A-Bombs
> >>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>> China.
> >>>>>>> 7) It has prevented anyone from using a nuclear bomb again
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, I have read the arguments. I don't think your friend,
> >>>>>>> Hershey, had any greater insight than Truman or his advisers.
> >>>>>>> Hershey
> >>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>> just 31, Truman was President, he had more information and a bigger
> >>>>>>> picture of the issues at the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The consequences of not dropping the bomb would have been
> >>>>>>> worse.
> >>>>>>> Hard to believe, but it would have been.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Donovan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
> >>>>>>> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 8:10 PM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Donovan,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For an interesting and opposing view, you might take a
> >>>>>>> look
> >>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>> John Hershey's Hiroshima, the Aftermath, published in the 1980s.
> >>>>>>> It's
> >>>>>>> one thing to have had to make that call, as Truman did, for a
> >>>>>>> nation
> >>>>>>> weary of war, and quite another to quote as fact today the idea
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> dropping of the atom bombs was necessary to save a million lives.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sue H.
> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>>> From: Donovan Arnold
> >>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Kenneth Marcy
> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:27 PM
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> People that were against the dropping of the atom
> >>>>>>> bombs
> >>>>>>> on Japan in WWII were obviously ignorant of the larger number of
> >>>>>>> causalities it would have cost both Japan and the US in its place,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> were insensitive to massive suffering and loss of life that the US
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> others had already endured.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Truman only had two options. 1) To kill one
> >>>>>>> million
> >>>>>>> more people, both Japanese and Americans, or 2) Kill 100,000
> >>>>>>> Japanese
> >>>>>>> that started the war and end it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To me, the choice is obvious. I am sure Truman
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> have dropped 12 billion roses instead if it ended the war, but it
> >>>>>>> wouldn't, so he did what had to do to end the war. And dropping the
> >>>>>>> bomb
> >>>>>>> barely did end the war as Japan still didn't want to surrender
> >>>>>>> initially
> >>>>>>> after that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best Regards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Donovan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Kenneth Marcy
> >>>>>>> <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings
> >>>>>>> (2009)
> >>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:45 PM
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 14:03:26 Kai Eiselein wrote:> Sooooo,
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> this apply to those who condemn the use of nuclear bombs on>
> >>>>>>> Japan?Yes. I
> >>>>>>> think that the Allies, and the Americans specifically, were
> >>>>>>> war-weary
> >>>>>>> from large social and industrial reorganizations to support a war
> >>>>>>> effort
> >>>>>>> then beyond all those previous. The prospect of any necessity of
> >>>>>>> taking a
> >>>>>>> land war from the Allies into Asia implied such huge additional
> >>>>>>> losses
> >>>>>>> that any way to end the Nipponese war, and prevent its spread more
> >>>>>>> generally to Asia, was seen as a useful effort.More so than any
> >>>>>>> subsequent major conflict, World War II was seen as a just war; the
> >>>>>>> Allied cause was worth winning for good reasons, and all efforts
> >>>>>>> toward
> >>>>>>> that end were justified.Yes, the atomic destruction was horrific,
> >>>>>>> no
> >>>>>>> doubt about it, and on sight of the test blast, the
> >>>>>>> decision makers all knew it. Oppenheimer said in New Mexico "I am
> >>>>>>> become
> >>>>>>> death." And the chain of command, from Groves upto Marshall and
> >>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> Truman, presumably had some idea of the much larger magnitude of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> atom
> >>>>>>> bombs, so the decision to use them was in service of ending the
> >>>>>>> Nipponese
> >>>>>>> war sooner rather than later.> Or the fire bombing of
> >>>>>>> Germany?Without
> >>>>>>> reviewing the technical details, I will just say that after the
> >>>>>>> U.S.
> >>>>>>> joined the Allied cause then underway, there was a strong
> >>>>>>> determination
> >>>>>>> to see the war effort through to a victorious decision. No one
> >>>>>>> doubted
> >>>>>>> the justness of the Allied cause, nor did anyone doubt that the
> >>>>>>> awful
> >>>>>>> destruction was beneath the dignified preferences of civil
> >>>>>>> societies.
> >>>>>>> However, the Axis aggression had to be stopped, and the prosecution
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the European efforts continued until that goal was reached. Whether
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> goal could have been achieved more
> >>>>>>> optimally with less destruction was a judgment call; second
> >>>>>>> guessing
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> arm-chair quarterbacking more than half a century later won't
> >>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>> their determination then to get the job done with what was
> >>>>>>> available.>
> >>>>>>> Or, the actions Europeans took in the Americas after stumbling upon
> >>>>>>> the>
> >>>>>>> contintents?Considering that Europeans first began attempting
> >>>>>>> permanent
> >>>>>>> North American settlements centuries ago, it is even more important
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> us not to impose our mind-set on their attitudes and motivations.
> >>>>>>> Some
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the earliest were explorers, somewhat later they were escaping
> >>>>>>> religious
> >>>>>>> differences. Yes, they had racist attitudes. Yes, they felt their
> >>>>>>> technologies and their old-world civilization gave them a sense of
> >>>>>>> entitlement to what they saw before them. There was no North
> >>>>>>> American
> >>>>>>> parliament with proportional representation of the indigenous
> >>>>>>> peoples,
> >>>>>>> and if anyone had been so foolish as
> >>>>>>> to suggest one, they would have been laughed, or worse, out of the
> >>>>>>> colony.>From our contemporary understandings we can easily and
> >>>>>>> glibly
> >>>>>>> say
> >>>>>>> that the Europeans should have accepted the natives as human
> >>>>>>> equals.
> >>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>> not all of them were willing to accept the "savages" as fully
> >>>>>>> human.
> >>>>>>> They
> >>>>>>> didnot have the advantage of knowing about Darwinian science,
> >>>>>>> Mendelian
> >>>>>>> genetics, and contemporary molecular biology that illustrates our
> >>>>>>> closer
> >>>>>>> human kinship than their observations of skin color, physiognomy,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> social culture allowed. Even today not all of us have learned these
> >>>>>>> lessons sufficiently well, so who are we to suggest that those
> >>>>>>> early
> >>>>>>> colonists were incompletely informed?> After all, there are those
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>> the same in those instances.> My comment wasn't so much anti-war as
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>> was historical fact. For some> reason Vietnam and Kennedy are kept
> >>>>>>> conspicuously separated in
> >>>>>>> history> textbooks, even though Kennedy's actions led the U.S.
> >>>>>>> directly
> >>>>>>> intothe> Vietnam war.Yes, it is true that many Americans are a
> >>>>>>> soft-hearted bunch, preferring polite conversation and gentle
> >>>>>>> reminiscences of how nice the Kennedy family looked, how cute and
> >>>>>>> adorable the children were, and on and on. Oh my, wouldn't it be
> >>>>>>> fun
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> sail with Jack and the boys, or ride English side-saddle with
> >>>>>>> Jackie
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> the ladies? How wonderful we could feel about ourselves,
> >>>>>>> fantasizing
> >>>>>>> ourselves into a far-away Camelot!As the older generations fade
> >>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>> memory, younger generations of historians will probably have
> >>>>>>> sharper
> >>>>>>> things to say about how close we came to a Soviet American war near
> >>>>>>> Cuba,
> >>>>>>> and how lucky we were for back-channel communication between the
> >>>>>>> nonagenarian English Lord Russell and Nikita Khrushchev, and some
> >>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>> fortunate military command communications incidents that
> >>>>>>> forestalled active engagement.> On another note, it was Kennedy
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>> signed legislation allowing U.S.> companies to set up shop in
> >>>>>>> foriegn
> >>>>>>> countries without having to pay U.S.> income taxes on their profits
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> those units. The idea was that by> bringing jobs into countries
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> were
> >>>>>>> at risk of falling to the commies,> it would make communism less
> >>>>>>> appealing. It was a logical move.There probably were multiple
> >>>>>>> reasons
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> allowing tax-free foreign commerce by American organizations.
> >>>>>>> Profits
> >>>>>>> likely were a part of it, as was the opportunity to extend the de
> >>>>>>> facto
> >>>>>>> American intelligence network abroad, but outside of the usual
> >>>>>>> military
> >>>>>>> and diplomatic channels. And I would not be surprised to learn that
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> administration found it convenient to allow certain organizations
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> operate profitably without any necessity for their books to be
> >>>>>>> examined
> >>>>>>> by anyone in an official sphere. The
> >>>>>>> darker corners of commercial activity can benefit more than just
> >>>>>>> capitalists, as many have noted since then.> Unfortunately, an
> >>>>>>> unintended
> >>>>>>> consequence has been the wholesale migration> of U.S. companies
> >>>>>>> abroad.Companies have been operating for profit internationally
> >>>>>>> since
> >>>>>>> ancient trading times, so international business is nothing new.
> >>>>>>> Consequences, unintended or not, can be changed if the courage and
> >>>>>>> collective will are marshalled to change laws and behaviors to more
> >>>>>>> desirable patterns. This is a question of needed leadership, not of
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> horses irrevocably having escaped the barn.> How much howling from
> >>>>>>> big
> >>>>>>> biz do you think there would be if the law was> repealed and they
> >>>>>>> had
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> pay taxes on their foreign income?How much howling is there over
> >>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>> contentious tax issue? Capital gains, for example? Too often, the
> >>>>>>> lobbyists and the committee chairmen decide their
> >>>>>>> answer, and that's that. Powerless citizens may howl all they
> >>>>>>> wish,
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> little avail. Powerful interests need not howl at all; they pay
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>> agents and their will is carried out via gallons of ink printed on
> >>>>>>> paper
> >>>>>>> mountains.Fundamental tax reform, as opposed to rearrangement of
> >>>>>>> regulations, is relatively rare in the United States. For example,
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> US
> >>>>>>> does not have a national property tax on large holdings of private
> >>>>>>> property, specifically land. Why do not corporations and
> >>>>>>> individuals
> >>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>> own millions of acres of land pay no federal property taxes on
> >>>>>>> those
> >>>>>>> large holdings? Exemptions for a few thousand acres of actively
> >>>>>>> farmed,
> >>>>>>> or recently fallowed, land could easily be arranged, so working
> >>>>>>> farm
> >>>>>>> families would be exempted. So, for the remaining land hoarders,
> >>>>>>> why
> >>>>>>> should they not pay some small rate of property tax to help offset
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> government expenses of their national defense and liberties
> >>>>>>> preservation? Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from the
> >>>>>>> French
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> enlarge the United States. Don't we all have an obligation to
> >>>>>>> periodically re-examine who owns what land, and to re-evaluate how
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> keep that land optimally productive, financially and
> >>>>>>> environmentally?Ken=======================================================
> >>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
> >>>>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>>>>> =======================================================
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>>> http://www.fsr.net
> >>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >>>> =======================================================
> >>>>
> >> =======================================================
> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> http://www.fsr.net
> >> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Windows, OSX, or Linux is the same choice as:
> McDonalds, Burger King, or a (real) Co-Op.
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list