Politics and the law dominate the Civics Education Program that Cranston Public Schools is unleashing for the 2006/ 2007 school year. The themes are not surprising, considering the event organizer.
Cranston School Committee Member Andrea M. Iannazzi, of Ward 6, not only came up with the idea for the program, but also picked the topics and contacted the guest speakers. Working closely with Superintendent Richard Scherza and Social Studies Program Supervisor Beverly Prestage, Iannazzi identified issues ranging from stem cell research and media influence to terrorism and civil liberties. The program’s goal is to present a balanced and thought provoking presentation for Cranston students and the surrounding community. The year long series will be free to the public and will be broadcast throughout Cranston, courtesy of Bain TV.
Since being elected to the School Committee in 2004, Iannazzi has focused her efforts on enhancing the history curriculum and engaging students in civics. Andrea said, “I believe that our students’ best chance of succeeding is to understand the political and social realities of today’s society. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, ‘Our children should learn the general framework of their government and then they should know where they come in contact with the government, where it touches their daily lives and where their influence is exerted on the government. It must not be a distant thing, someone else's business, but they must see how every cog in the wheel of a democracy is important and bears its share of responsibility for the smooth running of the entire machine.’ I agree completely and believe this program is a key first step in shaping responsible and engaged future citizens.”
Andrea credits her studies at the University of Rhode Island for her idea for the program, “I am often asked what sparked my interest in civics at such a relatively young age. Overwhelmingly, I look back to a Rhode Island State Government class I enrolled in at URI, moderated by Professor Maureen Moakley. Over the course of the semester, we heard from Judges, Lieutenant Governor Fogarty, then Attorney General Whitehouse, and other dignitaries. Instead of reading about the responsibilities of the judiciary or elected officials, we heard directly from the source. Due to Rhode Island’s small geographical size, this is the type of learning experience that is truly unique to our great State and will serve as a catalyst for civic engagement in the City of Cranston.”
Guest speakers include several members of the Rhode Island Judiciary, Congressman James Langevin, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, State Senators Hanna Gallo and Elizabeth Roberts, and State Representative Carol Mumford, among others.
Monthly events are scheduled for 7:00 p.m., beginning on September 19th at Bain Middle School. No event is scheduled for December. The venues will rotate throughout Cranston. A full schedule will be posted at www.cpsed.net after Labor Day. For more information on the series, contact Andrea at (401) 383-5642 or e-mail andreaiannazzi@msn.com.
Cranston Public Schools’
Civics Education Program
September 19, 2006 Terrorism
Bain Middle School Marc Genest, Naval War College
October 17, 2006 Politics and the Media
Park View Middle School Ian Donnis, Providence Phoenix
Dave Layman, Cote & D’Ambrosio
Bill Rappleye, WJAR 10
November 14, 2006 RI Judiciary
Cranston High School West Chief Justice Frank J. Williams, Supreme Court
Chief Justice Jeremiah S. Jeremiah Jr., Family Court
Justice Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, Superior Court
Judge Elaine T. Bucci, District Court
Representative from Worker’s Compensation Court
January 16, 2007 Criminal Law
Cranston High School East Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch
Public Defender John Hardiman
Moderator Lawrence Rothstein, URI
February 13, 2007 Rhode Island History
Western Hills Middle School To be announced
March 20, 2007 Women & Politics
Park View Middle School Denise Aiken
Representative Carol Mumford
Senator Elizabeth Roberts
April 2, 2007 Stem Cell Research
Cranston High School West Congressman James Langevin
May 15, 2007 Education Funding
Cranston High School East Senator Hanna Gallo
All programs begin promptly at 7:00 p.m.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Summary of Jim Webb’s National Security Address
National security policy under the Bush-Cheney Administration is in total disarray. There is no end in sight to the conflict in Iraq, the Middle East is out of control, Al Qaeda is stronger today than 5 years ago, and homeland security is being neglected. These difficulties have come about, in large part, because those who are leading us lack the kind of strategic vision that has served our country so well in past eras. George Allen, by blindly following the Bush administration and neglecting his constitutional duty as a Senator, bears great amount of responsibility for the state of American foreign policy.
America has a unique place in the world. It also has unique obligations – and opposition – in the conduct of it’s foreign policy. Terrorism and Iraq were separate issues, until George Bush incorrectly and unwisely linked them; now we need to straighten out the mess in Iraq. The war in Lebanon today is a direct result of the Bush Administration’s complete failure of policy in the Middle East. Issues in the Middle East are closely connected to matters across the globe to which we need strategic solutions. For instance, China has been developing closer ties with the exact Middle Eastern countries that pose challenges to the US. This is a dangerous and neglected alliance that we need to address.
First and foremost is Iraq. Iraq is in a crisis that we must address now in order to make progress on all other security matters. The invasion of Iraq was a double strategic blunder. First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism. Second, it has tied down our military in a costly occupation, fighting an insurgency that has strengthened not only the Shia population of Iraq, but also Iran itself. America needs – and deserves – a real debate: about all these issues, and about our strategy in Iraq itself.
The key question facing us is how long we should be expected to occupy Iraq. Someday we are going to leave. Senator Allen seemed rather blasé about this during our recent debate, stating that we have been in Cuba for more than 100 years. But most Americans want us to finish this mission and come home, as long as we do not leave even greater chaos behind. The Administration has never shared with us a specific approach of its own.
For more than two years, Jim Webb has been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq. The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term. It has not done so, and we should be mindful of the many comments by those who pushed so hard for this war, to the effect that we should set up a long-term “MacArthurian Regency” in Baghdad. We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.
The second step would be for us to begin immediate discussions with those countries that are culturally and historically invested in Iraq, and arguably aligned with us, to become overtly involved in a diplomatic solution, taking responsibility at some level for future stability among Iraq’s competing factions. This is do-able. Quite frankly, it will be more difficult in the wake of our failure to take similar steps during the early stages of the recent events in Lebanon. As you might recall, during the first days of that action, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the Israeli attacks. By not taking advantage of those gestures, we lost a great opportunity to bring some long-term stability in both situations. But, we should continue to pursue these sorts of solutions, just as we should work to break Syria apart from its unnatural alliance with Iran through direct discussions – something this Administration, with the strong support of George Allen, as refused to do.
Senator Allen has made it clear that, no matter how things are going, he will not question, let alone review and re-examine, the policies of the Bush Administration. Jim Webb, in contrast, has the experience – both on the battlefield and off – as well as the willingness and, most importantly, a strategic vision for doing so.
In debating the current occupation of Iraq we should be reminded of another era, in which a recently retired General took strong issue with a war that had gone on too long and resolved to do something about it. Few Americans called Dwight Eisenhower unpatriotic in the summer of 1952 when he criticized the Truman Administration for its conduct of the Korean War. It’s worthwhile in this era where Generals who speak out are accused of betrayal, to quote the five-star General who became our president.
“Where do we go from here?” he asked. “When comes the end? … These questions demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib excuses will serve. They would be no better than the glib prophecies that brought us to this pass… [a]ny answer that dishonestly pledged an end to war in Korea by any imminent, exact date would brand its speaker as a deceiver. The second and equally false answer declares that nothing can be done to speed a secure peace. It dares to tell us that we, the strongest nation in the history of freedom, can only wait, --and wait-- and wait. Such a statement brands its speaker as a defeatist.
“The old Administration cannot be expected to repair what it failed to prevent. Where will a new Administration begin? It will begin with it’s President taking a simple, firm resolution. The resolution will be: To forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean war-until that job is honorably done.
“And just as General Eisenhower made that pledge 54 years ago, it is relevant today. We must forego the slash and burn political tactics that have marked the last six years, and reach for a true solution to the war in Iraq and the chaos in the Middle East.”
America has a unique place in the world. It also has unique obligations – and opposition – in the conduct of it’s foreign policy. Terrorism and Iraq were separate issues, until George Bush incorrectly and unwisely linked them; now we need to straighten out the mess in Iraq. The war in Lebanon today is a direct result of the Bush Administration’s complete failure of policy in the Middle East. Issues in the Middle East are closely connected to matters across the globe to which we need strategic solutions. For instance, China has been developing closer ties with the exact Middle Eastern countries that pose challenges to the US. This is a dangerous and neglected alliance that we need to address.
First and foremost is Iraq. Iraq is in a crisis that we must address now in order to make progress on all other security matters. The invasion of Iraq was a double strategic blunder. First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism. Second, it has tied down our military in a costly occupation, fighting an insurgency that has strengthened not only the Shia population of Iraq, but also Iran itself. America needs – and deserves – a real debate: about all these issues, and about our strategy in Iraq itself.
The key question facing us is how long we should be expected to occupy Iraq. Someday we are going to leave. Senator Allen seemed rather blasé about this during our recent debate, stating that we have been in Cuba for more than 100 years. But most Americans want us to finish this mission and come home, as long as we do not leave even greater chaos behind. The Administration has never shared with us a specific approach of its own.
For more than two years, Jim Webb has been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq. The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term. It has not done so, and we should be mindful of the many comments by those who pushed so hard for this war, to the effect that we should set up a long-term “MacArthurian Regency” in Baghdad. We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.
The second step would be for us to begin immediate discussions with those countries that are culturally and historically invested in Iraq, and arguably aligned with us, to become overtly involved in a diplomatic solution, taking responsibility at some level for future stability among Iraq’s competing factions. This is do-able. Quite frankly, it will be more difficult in the wake of our failure to take similar steps during the early stages of the recent events in Lebanon. As you might recall, during the first days of that action, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the Israeli attacks. By not taking advantage of those gestures, we lost a great opportunity to bring some long-term stability in both situations. But, we should continue to pursue these sorts of solutions, just as we should work to break Syria apart from its unnatural alliance with Iran through direct discussions – something this Administration, with the strong support of George Allen, as refused to do.
Senator Allen has made it clear that, no matter how things are going, he will not question, let alone review and re-examine, the policies of the Bush Administration. Jim Webb, in contrast, has the experience – both on the battlefield and off – as well as the willingness and, most importantly, a strategic vision for doing so.
In debating the current occupation of Iraq we should be reminded of another era, in which a recently retired General took strong issue with a war that had gone on too long and resolved to do something about it. Few Americans called Dwight Eisenhower unpatriotic in the summer of 1952 when he criticized the Truman Administration for its conduct of the Korean War. It’s worthwhile in this era where Generals who speak out are accused of betrayal, to quote the five-star General who became our president.
“Where do we go from here?” he asked. “When comes the end? … These questions demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib excuses will serve. They would be no better than the glib prophecies that brought us to this pass… [a]ny answer that dishonestly pledged an end to war in Korea by any imminent, exact date would brand its speaker as a deceiver. The second and equally false answer declares that nothing can be done to speed a secure peace. It dares to tell us that we, the strongest nation in the history of freedom, can only wait, --and wait-- and wait. Such a statement brands its speaker as a defeatist.
“The old Administration cannot be expected to repair what it failed to prevent. Where will a new Administration begin? It will begin with it’s President taking a simple, firm resolution. The resolution will be: To forego the diversions of politics and to concentrate on the job of ending the Korean war-until that job is honorably done.
“And just as General Eisenhower made that pledge 54 years ago, it is relevant today. We must forego the slash and burn political tactics that have marked the last six years, and reach for a true solution to the war in Iraq and the chaos in the Middle East.”
Monday, August 14, 2006
Signs have been ordered!
This is a rough-copy JPEG version. The signs are double-sided, navy-blue and white, 18" X 24", union made, and corrugated plastic.
I have initially ordered 50 signs which will find homes on the fine lawns of Cranston's second ward between now and election day.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
The Cranston Herald Article
One problem, ITS WARD 2 NOT WARD 4
Araujo challenges incumbent in Ward 4
Andre Araujo recently sent out a press release announcing his run for School Committee in Ward 4.
Araujo, a 32-year-old married father of a young daughter who attends Cranston’s public schools, lives in the Forest Hills neighborhood.
An employee of the U.S. Navy, Araujo also serves as an enlisted technical sergeant with the R.I. Air National Guard and is a vestry board member of the Church of the Ascension in Cranston (Episcopal).
Araujo graduated from East Providence High School in 1991 was discharged honorably from the U.S. Air Force in 1997. He holds two associate degrees, one from CCRI and the other from the Community College of the Air Force; he is nearing completion of his bachelor’s degree at URI.
Araujo, in his release, cited Horton Elementary as one of his top motivations for running.
“We were all very disappointed with the way that Horton Elementary School was shut down and shocked by the callous manner in which our community was treated by the School Committee,” he said. “Instead of just complaining, I want to do something about it. I want to work hard for more reasonable school budgets. I want to work with City Hall to get better state and federal aid and to alleviate the burden from the city property taxpayers. We have hardworking and loyal teachers in the schools that deserve a decent wage so that they can continue to provide quality education to our children.”
Araujo challenges incumbent in Ward 4
Andre Araujo recently sent out a press release announcing his run for School Committee in Ward 4.
Araujo, a 32-year-old married father of a young daughter who attends Cranston’s public schools, lives in the Forest Hills neighborhood.
An employee of the U.S. Navy, Araujo also serves as an enlisted technical sergeant with the R.I. Air National Guard and is a vestry board member of the Church of the Ascension in Cranston (Episcopal).
Araujo graduated from East Providence High School in 1991 was discharged honorably from the U.S. Air Force in 1997. He holds two associate degrees, one from CCRI and the other from the Community College of the Air Force; he is nearing completion of his bachelor’s degree at URI.
Araujo, in his release, cited Horton Elementary as one of his top motivations for running.
“We were all very disappointed with the way that Horton Elementary School was shut down and shocked by the callous manner in which our community was treated by the School Committee,” he said. “Instead of just complaining, I want to do something about it. I want to work hard for more reasonable school budgets. I want to work with City Hall to get better state and federal aid and to alleviate the burden from the city property taxpayers. We have hardworking and loyal teachers in the schools that deserve a decent wage so that they can continue to provide quality education to our children.”
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Monday, August 07, 2006
Friday, August 04, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
"What I think the president ought to do..."
While on the campaign trail in 2000, George W. Bush told President Bill Clinton how to handle OPEC, in public no less. “What I think the president ought to do," he said, "is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots."
And in a brilliant, highly educational follow-up comment, Bush informed the audience: "One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up."
"OPEC has gotten its supply act together," Bush advised listeners, "and it's driving the price, like it did in the past."
"And," he said in direct advice to Clinton, "the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the prices."
Apparently, Bush has lost the phone numbers for OPEC members, or they are refusing to take his calls, because I think its safe to assume that he did not "jawbone" members of the OPEC cartel.
That said, if Bush is not in the mood for "jawboning," he could at least use a little pillow talk with his buddies in Saudi Arabia and get them to open the spigots.
During campaign 2000, Bush told Americans that he had an energy plan that would reduce gas prices at the pumps and here we sit five years later, with the highest prices in history.
The high energy costs are affecting everyone, from commuters and consumers, to public and private programs. The damage is devastating everywhere.
Since Bush took office, gas prices have increased 62.5 percent from $1.44 per gallon in January 2001 to $2.34 in March 2006. The average household with children will spend about $3,343 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 75 percent since 2001, according to the Energy Information Administration, Retail Gasoline Prices, and Household Vehicle Energy Use: Latest Data and Trends, November 2005.
And gas prices are still rising. As of April 24, the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge report said, nationally, the average price for a gallon of regular gas was $2.90, or a 15.5 percent hike over the $2.51 price per gallon a month ago.
So where is all the money going? One need not look far. In 2005, the world's largest oil company, ExxonMoblile, reported the most profitable year in US corporate history, earning more than $36 billion.
Economists say oil producers and refiners, not gas stations, are making a killing. The five largest refineries, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Valero, and British Petroleum (BP) have recorded $228 billion in profits since 2001, according to testimony at a congressional hearing last November.
In 1999, refiners made 23 cents for each gallon processed and in 2004, they made 41 cents a gallon, according to Department of Energy data.
While watching oil company profits skyrocket, the average American household spent about $107 more for heating this past winter compared to the year before. In 2005-06, households heating with natural gas paid $402 or 86 percent more than they paid in 2001-2002. Consumers of heating oil paid $759 or 121 percent more this winter than they paid in 2001-2002, according to the Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, April 2006
And in a brilliant, highly educational follow-up comment, Bush informed the audience: "One reason why the price is so high is because the price of crude oil has been driven up."
"OPEC has gotten its supply act together," Bush advised listeners, "and it's driving the price, like it did in the past."
"And," he said in direct advice to Clinton, "the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the prices."
Apparently, Bush has lost the phone numbers for OPEC members, or they are refusing to take his calls, because I think its safe to assume that he did not "jawbone" members of the OPEC cartel.
That said, if Bush is not in the mood for "jawboning," he could at least use a little pillow talk with his buddies in Saudi Arabia and get them to open the spigots.
During campaign 2000, Bush told Americans that he had an energy plan that would reduce gas prices at the pumps and here we sit five years later, with the highest prices in history.
The high energy costs are affecting everyone, from commuters and consumers, to public and private programs. The damage is devastating everywhere.
Since Bush took office, gas prices have increased 62.5 percent from $1.44 per gallon in January 2001 to $2.34 in March 2006. The average household with children will spend about $3,343 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 75 percent since 2001, according to the Energy Information Administration, Retail Gasoline Prices, and Household Vehicle Energy Use: Latest Data and Trends, November 2005.
And gas prices are still rising. As of April 24, the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge report said, nationally, the average price for a gallon of regular gas was $2.90, or a 15.5 percent hike over the $2.51 price per gallon a month ago.
So where is all the money going? One need not look far. In 2005, the world's largest oil company, ExxonMoblile, reported the most profitable year in US corporate history, earning more than $36 billion.
Economists say oil producers and refiners, not gas stations, are making a killing. The five largest refineries, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Valero, and British Petroleum (BP) have recorded $228 billion in profits since 2001, according to testimony at a congressional hearing last November.
In 1999, refiners made 23 cents for each gallon processed and in 2004, they made 41 cents a gallon, according to Department of Energy data.
While watching oil company profits skyrocket, the average American household spent about $107 more for heating this past winter compared to the year before. In 2005-06, households heating with natural gas paid $402 or 86 percent more than they paid in 2001-2002. Consumers of heating oil paid $759 or 121 percent more this winter than they paid in 2001-2002, according to the Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, April 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
