<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;">I think DARE does help, it just doesn't help all kids. I think you have to try lots of things out because kids are all different and will respond differently to different methods. <br><br>I would not put everything into DARE. I would have several programs. No matter you do though, there will always be kids that end up on drugs.<br><br>Best Regards,<br><br>Donovan<br><br>--- On <b>Tue, 2/24/09, Bill London <i><london@moscow.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">From: Bill London <london@moscow.com><br>Subject: [Vision2020] DARE to speak the truth<br>To: "lfalen" <lfalen@turbonet.com>, "Warren Hayman" <whayman@roadrunner.com>, "Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>, donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com, vision2020@moscow.com<br>Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009,
1:46 PM<br><br><pre>DARE, like abstinence-only sex education, sounds great to older, <br>conservative voters.....but the real question is ... do these programs work?<br>Do young people respond to these messages and alter their behavior?<br>The answer now, after years of effort and years of study, is nope.<br>BL<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>----- Original Message ----- <br>From: "lfalen" <lfalen@turbonet.com><br>To: "Warren Hayman" <whayman@roadrunner.com>; "Sue<br>Hovey" <br><suehovey@moscow.com>; <donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com>; <br><vision2020@moscow.com><br>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:03 PM<br>Subject: [Vision2020] [Spam 5.59] Re: Subject change to "Was it Necessary <br>toUse theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings<br><br><br>> D.A.R.E is a good program. The idea behind it is to say no to a dare.<br>> Roger<br>> -----Original message-----<br>> From: "Warren Hayman"
whayman@roadrunner.com<br>> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:13:36 -0800<br>> To: "lfalen" lfalen@turbonet.com, "Sue Hovey"<br>suehovey@moscow.com, <br>> donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com, vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: [Spam 5.59] Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it<br>Necessary <br>> to Use theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings<br>><br>>> So we can get rid of the DARE program in the school district? Great<br>idea!<br>>><br>>> Warren Hayman<br>>><br>>> ----- Original Message ----- <br>>> From: "lfalen" <lfalen@turbonet.com><br>>> To: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>;<br><donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com>;<br>>> <vision2020@moscow.com><br>>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:34 PM<br>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it Necessary to<br>Use<br>>> theAtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential
Rankings<br>>><br>>><br>>> > Sue<br>>> > The mentality behind issuing a dare is harmful, just as is the <br>>> > mentality<br>>> > of casting shame on being an snitch, or stoolie. A dare is a<br>challenge <br>>> > to<br>>> > some ones bravery, like you are a coward if you don't accept.<br>This can <br>>> > get<br>>> > kids in a lot of trouble and should be something teachers are<br>fighting<br>>> > against. In reality rejecting a dare takes more courage than<br>accepting<br>>> > one.<br>>> > Roger<br>>> > -----Original message-----<br>>> > From: "Sue Hovey" suehovey@moscow.com<br>>> > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:03:25 -0800<br>>> > To: "lfalen" lfalen@turbonet.com,<br>donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com,<br>>> > vision2020@moscow.com<br>>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was
it<br>Necessary to Use <br>>> > the<br>>> > AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential Rankings<br>>> ><br>>> >> I sent this to Donovan. I didn't dare you to do<br>anything....I don't <br>>> >> care<br>>> >> whether you read Hershey's book or not...And why, pray<br>tell, is it<br>>> >> shameful<br>>> >> for me to issue a dare to him? Are your standards for<br>teachers <br>>> >> somewhat<br>>> >> more skewed than for other such ordinary folk? He didn't<br>respond <br>>> >> anyway,<br>>> >> so<br>>> >> we'll never know whether he decided to read it. And the<br>word is<br>>> >> bearing.....<br>>> >><br>>> >> Sue H.<br>>> >> ----- Original Message ----- <br>>> >> From: "lfalen" <lfalen@turbonet.com><br>>> >> To: "Sue Hovey"
<suehovey@moscow.com>;<br><donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com>;<br>>> >> <vision2020@moscow.com><br>>> >> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 9:50 AM<br>>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it<br>Necessary to Use <br>>> >> the<br>>> >> AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential<br>Rankings<br>>> >><br>>> >><br>>> >> > Shame on you Sue as a teacher for issuing a dare. I may<br>or may not<br>>> >> > read<br>>> >> > Hershey's book. A dare would have absolutely no<br>baring on it.<br>>> >> > Roger<br>>> >> > -----Original message-----<br>>> >> > From: "Sue Hovey" suehovey@moscow.com<br>>> >> > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:12:03 -0800<br>>> >> > To: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com, vision2020@moscow.com<br>>> >> >
Subject: [Vision2020] Subject change to "Was it<br>Necessary to Use the<br>>> >> > AtomicBombs on Japan?" Former title Presidential<br>Rankings<br>>> >> ><br>>> >> >> 1. I agree, it did end the war quickly--in a matter<br>of days.<br>>> >> >> 2. And if the bombs hadn't been dropped, how<br>much less intact <br>>> >> >> would<br>>> >> >> have<br>>> >> >> Japan been on Sep 1, 1945?<br>>> >> >> 3. It did that. And we had committed to the goal of<br>unconditional<br>>> >> >> surrender.<br>>> >> >> 4. No, no, no....it did not.<br>>> >> >> 5. But they didn't back out of Germany....And<br>they were already<br>>> >> >> developing nuclear weapons.<br>>> >> >> 6. Well you got me there & I was living in<br>Texas then, but
Bentson<br>>> >> >> wasn't the U.S. Senator from Texas until quite a<br>bit later, so I<br>>> >> >> really<br>>> >> >> don't believe this happened. During the Korean<br>war I think our<br>>> >> >> senators<br>>> >> >> were LBJ and Tom Connally.<br>>> >> >> 7. Maybe so, maybe not.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Go ahead and read Hershey's book. I double dare<br>you. You may not <br>>> >> >> be<br>>> >> >> convinced, but you will have another perspective to<br>chew on.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Sue H.<br>>> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- <br>>> >> >> From: Donovan Arnold<br>>> >> >> To: vision2020@moscow.com ; Sue Hovey<br>>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, February 19,
2009 8:45 PM<br>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings<br>(2009)<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Sue,<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> It was necessary to drop the bomb for<br>several reasons.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> 1) It brought a quick end to the war<br>>> >> >> 2) It kept the rest of Japan intact<br>>> >> >> 3) It gave us an unconditional surrender,<br>which is what the<br>>> >> >> Allies swore to do<br>>> >> >> 4) It limited Casualties on both sides of<br>the war<br>>> >> >> 5) It showed Russia that we have the bomb,<br>and will use it, <br>>> >> >> so<br>>> >> >> back out of Germany and Western
Europe.<br>>> >> >> 6) The aftermath of the A-Bomb, its horrible<br>impact on <br>>> >> >> people,<br>>> >> >> helped Senator Benston-D Texas, convince the Senate<br>to block <br>>> >> >> General<br>>> >> >> MacArthur's attempts to end the Korean War by<br>dropping 50 A-Bombs <br>>> >> >> on<br>>> >> >> China.<br>>> >> >> 7) It has prevented anyone from using a<br>nuclear bomb again<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> So, I have read the arguments. I don't<br>think your friend,<br>>> >> >> Hershey, had any greater insight than Truman or his<br>advisers. <br>>> >> >> Hershey<br>>> >> >> was<br>>> >> >> just 31, Truman was President, he had more<br>information and a bigger<br>>> >>
>> picture of the issues at the time.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> The consequences of not dropping the bomb<br>would have been<br>>> >> >> worse.<br>>> >> >> Hard to believe, but it would have been.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Best Regards,<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Donovan<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Sue Hovey<br><suehovey@moscow.com> wrote:<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> From: Sue Hovey<br><suehovey@moscow.com><br>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential<br>Rankings (2009)<br>>> >> >> To: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com,<br>vision2020@moscow.com<br>>>
>> >> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 8:10 PM<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Donovan,<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> For an interesting and opposing view, you<br>might take a <br>>> >> >> look<br>>> >> >> at<br>>> >> >> John Hershey's Hiroshima, the Aftermath,<br>published in the 1980s. <br>>> >> >> It's<br>>> >> >> one thing to have had to make that call, as Truman<br>did, for a <br>>> >> >> nation<br>>> >> >> weary of war, and quite another to quote as fact<br>today the idea <br>>> >> >> that<br>>> >> >> the<br>>> >> >> dropping of the atom bombs was necessary to save a<br>million lives.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >>
>> Sue H.<br>>> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- <br>>> >> >> From: Donovan Arnold<br>>> >> >> To: vision2020@moscow.com ; Kenneth<br>Marcy<br>>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:27<br>PM<br>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential<br>Rankings (2009)<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> People that were against the<br>dropping of the atom<br>>> >> >> bombs<br>>> >> >> on Japan in WWII were obviously ignorant of the<br>larger number of<br>>> >> >> causalities it would have cost both Japan and the US<br>in its place, <br>>> >> >> and<br>>> >> >> were insensitive to massive suffering and loss of<br>life that the US
<br>>> >> >> and<br>>> >> >> others had already endured.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Truman only had two options. 1) To<br>kill one <br>>> >> >> million<br>>> >> >> more people, both Japanese and Americans, or 2) Kill<br>100,000 <br>>> >> >> Japanese<br>>> >> >> that started the war and end it.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> To me, the choice is obvious. I am<br>sure Truman <br>>> >> >> would<br>>> >> >> have dropped 12 billion roses instead if it ended<br>the war, but it<br>>> >> >> wouldn't, so he did what had to do to end the<br>war. And dropping the<br>>> >> >> bomb<br>>> >> >> barely did end the war as Japan still didn't<br>want to surrender<br>>>
>> >> initially<br>>> >> >> after that.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Best Regards.<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> Donovan<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Kenneth Marcy<br>>> >> >> <kmmos1@verizon.net><br>>> >> >> wrote:<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >> From: Kenneth Marcy<br><kmmos1@verizon.net><br>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020]<br>Presidential Rankings<br>>> >> >> (2009)<br>>> >> >> To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>>> >> >> Date: Thursday, February 19,<br>2009, 12:45 PM<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>>
>> >> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 14:03:26 Kai Eiselein<br>wrote:> Sooooo,<br>>> >> >> would<br>>> >> >> this apply to those who condemn the use of nuclear<br>bombs on><br>>> >> >> Japan?Yes. I<br>>> >> >> think that the Allies, and the Americans<br>specifically, were <br>>> >> >> war-weary<br>>> >> >> from large social and industrial reorganizations to<br>support a war<br>>> >> >> effort<br>>> >> >> then beyond all those previous. The prospect of any<br>necessity of<br>>> >> >> taking a<br>>> >> >> land war from the Allies into Asia implied such huge<br>additional <br>>> >> >> losses<br>>> >> >> that any way to end the Nipponese war, and prevent<br>its spread more<br>>> >> >> generally to Asia, was seen
as a useful effort.More<br>so than any<br>>> >> >> subsequent major conflict, World War II was seen as<br>a just war; the<br>>> >> >> Allied cause was worth winning for good reasons, and<br>all efforts<br>>> >> >> toward<br>>> >> >> that end were justified.Yes, the atomic destruction<br>was horrific, <br>>> >> >> no<br>>> >> >> doubt about it, and on sight of the test blast, the<br>>> >> >> decision makers all knew it. Oppenheimer said in<br>New Mexico "I am<br>>> >> >> become<br>>> >> >> death." And the chain of command, from Groves<br>upto Marshall and <br>>> >> >> then<br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> Truman, presumably had some idea of the much larger<br>magnitude of <br>>> >> >> the<br>>> >> >>
atom<br>>> >> >> bombs, so the decision to use them was in service of<br>ending the<br>>> >> >> Nipponese<br>>> >> >> war sooner rather than later.> Or the fire<br>bombing of <br>>> >> >> Germany?Without<br>>> >> >> reviewing the technical details, I will just say<br>that after the <br>>> >> >> U.S.<br>>> >> >> joined the Allied cause then underway, there was a<br>strong<br>>> >> >> determination<br>>> >> >> to see the war effort through to a victorious<br>decision. No one <br>>> >> >> doubted<br>>> >> >> the justness of the Allied cause, nor did anyone<br>doubt that the <br>>> >> >> awful<br>>> >> >> destruction was beneath the dignified preferences of<br>civil <br>>> >> >> societies.<br>>>
>> >> However, the Axis aggression had to be stopped, and<br>the prosecution <br>>> >> >> of<br>>> >> >> the European efforts continued until that goal was<br>reached. Whether<br>>> >> >> the<br>>> >> >> goal could have been achieved more<br>>> >> >> optimally with less destruction was a judgment<br>call; second <br>>> >> >> guessing<br>>> >> >> and<br>>> >> >> arm-chair quarterbacking more than half a century<br>later won't <br>>> >> >> change<br>>> >> >> their determination then to get the job done with<br>what was <br>>> >> >> available.><br>>> >> >> Or, the actions Europeans took in the Americas after<br>stumbling upon<br>>> >> >> the><br>>> >> >> contintents?Considering that
Europeans first began<br>attempting<br>>> >> >> permanent<br>>> >> >> North American settlements centuries ago, it is even<br>more important<br>>> >> >> for<br>>> >> >> us not to impose our mind-set on their attitudes and<br>motivations. <br>>> >> >> Some<br>>> >> >> of<br>>> >> >> the earliest were explorers, somewhat later they<br>were escaping<br>>> >> >> religious<br>>> >> >> differences. Yes, they had racist attitudes. Yes,<br>they felt their<br>>> >> >> technologies and their old-world civilization gave<br>them a sense of<br>>> >> >> entitlement to what they saw before them. There was<br>no North <br>>> >> >> American<br>>> >> >> parliament with proportional representation of the<br>indigenous <br>>> >>
>> peoples,<br>>> >> >> and if anyone had been so foolish as<br>>> >> >> to suggest one, they would have been laughed, or<br>worse, out of the<br>>> >> >> colony.>From our contemporary understandings we<br>can easily and <br>>> >> >> glibly<br>>> >> >> say<br>>> >> >> that the Europeans should have accepted the natives<br>as human <br>>> >> >> equals.<br>>> >> >> But<br>>> >> >> not all of them were willing to accept the<br>"savages" as fully <br>>> >> >> human.<br>>> >> >> They<br>>> >> >> didnot have the advantage of knowing about Darwinian<br>science,<br>>> >> >> Mendelian<br>>> >> >> genetics, and contemporary molecular biology that<br>illustrates our<br>>> >> >>
closer<br>>> >> >> human kinship than their observations of skin color,<br>physiognomy, <br>>> >> >> and<br>>> >> >> social culture allowed. Even today not all of us<br>have learned these<br>>> >> >> lessons sufficiently well, so who are we to suggest<br>that those <br>>> >> >> early<br>>> >> >> colonists were incompletely informed?> After all,<br>there are those <br>>> >> >> who<br>>> >> >> do<br>>> >> >> the same in those instances.> My comment<br>wasn't so much anti-war as <br>>> >> >> it<br>>> >> >> was historical fact. For some> reason Vietnam and<br>Kennedy are kept<br>>> >> >> conspicuously separated in<br>>> >> >> history> textbooks, even though Kennedy's<br>actions led the U.S.<br>>> >>
>> directly<br>>> >> >> intothe> Vietnam war.Yes, it is true that many<br>Americans are a<br>>> >> >> soft-hearted bunch, preferring polite conversation<br>and gentle<br>>> >> >> reminiscences of how nice the Kennedy family looked,<br>how cute and<br>>> >> >> adorable the children were, and on and on. Oh my,<br>wouldn't it be <br>>> >> >> fun<br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> sail with Jack and the boys, or ride English<br>side-saddle with <br>>> >> >> Jackie<br>>> >> >> and<br>>> >> >> the ladies? How wonderful we could feel about<br>ourselves, <br>>> >> >> fantasizing<br>>> >> >> ourselves into a far-away Camelot!As the older<br>generations fade <br>>> >> >> into<br>>> >> >> memory, younger generations
of historians will<br>probably have <br>>> >> >> sharper<br>>> >> >> things to say about how close we came to a Soviet<br>American war near<br>>> >> >> Cuba,<br>>> >> >> and how lucky we were for back-channel communication<br>between the<br>>> >> >> nonagenarian English Lord Russell and Nikita<br>Khrushchev, and some<br>>> >> >> other<br>>> >> >> fortunate military command communications incidents<br>that<br>>> >> >> forestalled active engagement.> On another note,<br>it was Kennedy <br>>> >> >> who<br>>> >> >> signed legislation allowing U.S.> companies to<br>set up shop in <br>>> >> >> foriegn<br>>> >> >> countries without having to pay U.S.> income<br>taxes on their profits<br>>> >> >> from<br>>> >>
>> those units. The idea was that by> bringing jobs<br>into countries <br>>> >> >> that<br>>> >> >> were<br>>> >> >> at risk of falling to the commies,> it would make<br>communism less<br>>> >> >> appealing. It was a logical move.There probably were<br>multiple <br>>> >> >> reasons<br>>> >> >> for<br>>> >> >> allowing tax-free foreign commerce by American<br>organizations. <br>>> >> >> Profits<br>>> >> >> likely were a part of it, as was the opportunity to<br>extend the de<br>>> >> >> facto<br>>> >> >> American intelligence network abroad, but outside of<br>the usual<br>>> >> >> military<br>>> >> >> and diplomatic channels. And I would not be<br>surprised to learn that<br>>> >> >>
the<br>>> >> >> administration found it convenient to allow certain<br>organizations <br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> operate profitably without any necessity for their<br>books to be<br>>> >> >> examined<br>>> >> >> by anyone in an official sphere. The<br>>> >> >> darker corners of commercial activity can benefit<br>more than just<br>>> >> >> capitalists, as many have noted since then.><br>Unfortunately, an<br>>> >> >> unintended<br>>> >> >> consequence has been the wholesale migration> of<br>U.S. companies<br>>> >> >> abroad.Companies have been operating for profit<br>internationally <br>>> >> >> since<br>>> >> >> ancient trading times, so international business is<br>nothing new.<br>>> >> >> Consequences, unintended or
not, can be changed if<br>the courage and<br>>> >> >> collective will are marshalled to change laws and<br>behaviors to more<br>>> >> >> desirable patterns. This is a question of needed<br>leadership, not of<br>>> >> >> the<br>>> >> >> horses irrevocably having escaped the barn.> How<br>much howling from <br>>> >> >> big<br>>> >> >> biz do you think there would be if the law was><br>repealed and they <br>>> >> >> had<br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> pay taxes on their foreign income?How much howling<br>is there over <br>>> >> >> any<br>>> >> >> contentious tax issue? Capital gains, for example?<br>Too often, the<br>>> >> >> lobbyists and the committee chairmen decide their<br>>> >> >> answer, and that's that. Powerless
citizens<br>may howl all they <br>>> >> >> wish,<br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> little avail. Powerful interests need not howl at<br>all; they pay <br>>> >> >> their<br>>> >> >> agents and their will is carried out via gallons of<br>ink printed on<br>>> >> >> paper<br>>> >> >> mountains.Fundamental tax reform, as opposed to<br>rearrangement of<br>>> >> >> regulations, is relatively rare in the United<br>States. For example, <br>>> >> >> the<br>>> >> >> US<br>>> >> >> does not have a national property tax on large<br>holdings of private<br>>> >> >> property, specifically land. Why do not corporations<br>and <br>>> >> >> individuals<br>>> >> >> who<br>>> >> >> own millions of acres of land pay
no federal<br>property taxes on <br>>> >> >> those<br>>> >> >> large holdings? Exemptions for a few thousand acres<br>of actively<br>>> >> >> farmed,<br>>> >> >> or recently fallowed, land could easily be arranged,<br>so working <br>>> >> >> farm<br>>> >> >> families would be exempted. So, for the remaining<br>land hoarders, <br>>> >> >> why<br>>> >> >> should they not pay some small rate of property tax<br>to help offset <br>>> >> >> the<br>>> >> >> government expenses of their national defense and<br>liberties<br>>> >> >> preservation? Jefferson bought the Louisiana<br>Purchase from the <br>>> >> >> French<br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> enlarge the United States. Don't we all have an<br>obligation
to<br>>> >> >> periodically re-examine who owns what land, and to<br>re-evaluate how <br>>> >> >> to<br>>> >> >> keep that land optimally productive, financially and<br>>> >> >><br>environmentally?Ken=======================================================<br>>> >> >> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the<br>>> >> >> communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>>> >> >> http://www.fsr.net<br>>> >> >><br>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=======================================================<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >>
>> <br>=======================================================<br>>> >> >> List services made available by First<br>Step Internet,<br>>> >> >> serving the communities of the Palouse<br>since 1994.<br>>> >> >> http://www.fsr.net<br>>> >> >> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>>> >> >> <br>=======================================================<br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> >><br>>> >> ><br>>> >><br>>> ><br>>> > =======================================================<br>>> > List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>>> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>>> > http://www.fsr.net<br>>> >
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>>> > =======================================================<br>>><br>><br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br>><br>> <br><br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================<br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></table><br>