Sharpton and Gingrich Partners?

Like many of you, I had almost given up on our country's ability to regain the world-class stature we once had in K-12 education. You all the know statistics -- or you should. How we compare with China and Singapore, for example, on math and science scores. It's no exaggeration that education in the country is in crisis, a crisis that affects our collective future perhaps more than any other.

Meet the Press this morning featured a discussion -- more than a discussion, a partnership actually -- between prominent conservative, Newt Gingrich, outspoken liberal, Al Sharpton; and Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education. I like what heard. I think you will, too.

After watching the segment, I am more encouraged than I have ever been that something CAN be done to transform American K-12 education.

The fact that two political extremes, on the left and right, can come together on this vital issue gives me great hope for America (at a time when I frankly don't find much to be optimistic about)

Just the fact that Gingrich and Sharpton can share the same mission, the same goals, on something so important gives me great hope. And for this to happen in partnership with an administration that demonstrates financial commitment and a willingness to stand up to the teachers unions (unusual for Democrats), makes me believe that we're finally taking steps in the right direction in a sustainable way

We've hardly started, but for the first time ever I think we can get there. (Until now, I never thought we could).

Please click on the link and watch it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/#33948109

Act of War vs. Criminal Offense

The controversy over whether a military tribunal or a civilian court is the appopriate way to try so-called "terrorists" seems to boil down to one main question: Was 9/11 an act of war, or was it a criminal offense. I think it's best defined as the latter, a criminal conspiracy, a crime, a homocide or even genocide. But not an "act of war."

I think that to treat these acts as criminal offenses diminishes their status. "Act of war" feeds into Jihad, makes them more important than they are. Treat 'em as the criminals there are. What was 9/11 but a criminal act by 19 suicide hijackers, directed by a small cadre of fanatics in Afghanstan?

Their act, despite its tragic consequences in terms of numbers and notoriety, was a criminal act.

We were right to go after these criminals in Afghanstan. and to a great extent we succeeded. The Taliban was virtually defeated in only four months. And then we attacked Iraq and took our eye off the ball. You know the rest of the story.

Belief

In the wake of the recent shooting at Fort Hood, I heard a Muslim Army Officer on the radio explaining that the Koran does not condone violence against innocent people. Fine, I've heard that before. But like the Bible, the Koran is so full of contractions that it seems to me that whatever one wants to do can be justified somewhere in the Koran.

But one thing he said sticks with me: "The Koran," he said without a hint of irony, "tells us what to believe."

Tells us what to believe! I can't imagine a more ridiculous statement. The idea that you, or anyone, can or should be told what to believe, strikes me as illogical and nonsensical. If the only reason you believe something is because you're were told to believe it, do you really really believe it? Or are you just stupid, or incurious, or gullible, or something else? I don't know.

We can entangle ourselves with semantics on this one, but it to me it just underscores the utter foolishness of religion at least, and, at worst, the danger of religion.