I'm sure Zell really appreciated that letter. Who cares? He's out and he will be replaced by a Republican. I respected Max Cleeland for his service to his country and losing three limbs in that service, but was he a supporter of a strong national defense. No. As a result, he got the heave-ho from we in the finest of all states, Georgia. And as for that dumbass's attorney's assertion that the HOPE scholarship is going to be denied to people, the real truth is this: A. Not everyone is capable of performing college level work B. Grade inflation is ramapant here in GA. When I went to school a hundred years ago, when you made an A, you worked your ass to get it. Now.....teachers give them out like candy at Halloween. People wonder why my children go to Catholic school almost 40 miles away from our house (I or my wife drop them off on our way to work [both of us work in the ATL area] and pick them up on our way back.) C. All the GOP wanted to do was link the grade requirement to a decent grade on the SAT test, that's all. Since the SAT test is a good marker of one's ability to do college work, shouldn't that be fair to the taxpayers of GA? But to the Democrats, it was simply a scheme to keep poor kids out of a free college education because SAT tests are "culturally biased, unfair, blah, blah, blah."
Studies have shown that the number of A's and B's given by teachers here in GA and in universities throughout the country, have gone through the proverbial roof. Disregard that at your peril. What good is an A if you didn't earn it? Second of all, if you look at the stats, the frosh attrition rate (those who quit college their freshman year) is up, way up because......ding, ding, a lot of those kids don't belong there. So why should someone be "entitled" to a free college education when one is not capable of doing what is neccessary to earn that free college degree? You tell me.
But does it make it right? If the rest of the world doesn't agree with what you are doing wouldn't there be a reason for it? Some of the evilest people in history (I'm not saying that Bush is evil, far from it) did what they thought were right, and the rest of the world were horrified, should they be admired?
Please connect these two dots: College students are getting As and Bs that they do not deserve, since college grad inflation has gone through the roof. College freshman attrition rate is way up. Are college freshman getting As and Bs handed to them and then deciding that they somehow just can not cut it at college? I eagarly await more of your over generalizations and overstatements.
These are no overstatements or generalizations. The kids are flunking out of college or requiring remedial english or other courses because they got A's and B's in high school they did not deserve just so they'd have a shot at the HOPE scholarship, which requires a B average to get you a free ride to the state school of your choice. What's so wrong about tying a SAT score requirement to that, because a lot of the kids that are going to school on the dole are flunking out. Why? Because they didn't belong there in the first place. HOPE problems in Maryland with grade inflation HOPE scholarships promote grade inflation HOPE promotes grade inflation
He's teaching... and probably giving out A's to everyone who doesn't deserve them. He's also on the 9-11 Commission.
"Shut up, I'm trying to get some sleep in here" What in the world does that have to do with Dean's stance against the war. I guess he's tired of all the war news and he wants to go to sleep at night. The quote doesn't even make sense. You're right Dumbest quote of the year
Well, he should just give our forces Bin Laden and Hussein's addresses since he's such good friends with them. Lousy amputee.
Zell was trying to say that Dean would rather ignore the situation, despite its gravity (like the Iraq situation) for his own selfish ends.
Did you even read these articles? Just curious. This article mentions grade inflation, but only in high school. The article does mention that student are looking for puff classes to bolster their GPA and maintain their HOPE scholarships which requires a 3.0. Not a lot different than pre-meds, no? No mention of grade inflation at universities, which was the axe I was grinding you with. The article did mention one HOPE scholarship student by name. She said she was unprepared for how tough college was (your contention) and that she had to work harder in the second half of her freshman year to maintain her 3.0 GPA. Is this really a bad thing? Isn't this the right tack where kids are assisted with a scholarship (only $3000 a year in this case) as long they keep good grades which may mean that they have to work harder? (The article also mentions that some students drop out of the HOPE scolarship program due to the in-state work requirement. For every year of HOPE scholarship, they must work one year in-state or their "scholarship" becomes a loan. ) Back to original overstatement: "free college education" : that would be an overstatement, since the scholarship is only $3000 per year. "when one is not capable of doing what is neccessary to earn that free college degree" : The HOPE scholarship program appears to weed out the students who are not willing to do what it takes to keep a 3.0. Those students, which can not cut it, lose their "free" education and certainly will only graduate and get a degree by paying for it themselves.
I guess we're firing salvoes at different, but similar issues. My point was that high schools here are inflating grades so that nearly everyone can take advantage of the HOPE scholarship. Now as for college grade inflation, one of the experts in the field, who teaches at the U of A, has shown some statistics that reveal that awards of A's and B's in school have been skyrocketing in the past decades. I'm not saying that you or I didn't deserve the A's and B's we made, but that I'm saying that more folks are doing it, which I find suspicious.
My favorite quote is still "I knew my God was bigger than his god." Churchill is rolling in his grave... being compared to Bush. Laughable. Churchill could open his mouth without embarassing himself, and he didn't need to dress up like a fighter pilot to earn the respect of his nation. Not that I think Democrats are real great, but I'm sure they won't cry over this guy finally calling himself what he really is: a Republican.
Whether or not Zell is on the Mark about Dean is unknowable. But we do know that Dean was on the Mark about Iraq. He asked for proof before rushing to war, and didn't automatically buy into what the Whitehouse said was proof. In the end Howard Dean was correct, and had the courage to stand up and so at a time when other Democrats, Zell included, were giving away their congressional powers with their votes. It was also at a time when anyone who didn't like the idea was being labeled unpatriotic. Yet Dean stuck to his guns and was correct about wanting proof. It turns out that the evidence was wrong, manipulated etc. Too bad people like Zell weren't listening to Dean.
I wish you people would quit with this lie of the "rush" to war. It took months! That's not what I'd call rushed at all. We went to the UN and jumped through hoops. Regardless of the evidence, we were going to have to get rid of Saddam, either do it now while his military was in shambles and his WMD program was not totally reconstituted, or wait around and allow him to get WMD and rebuild his military, both of which he would've despite our silly no-fly zones and satellite reconnaissance. Why allow someone to build and prepare to whack you when you can do so before they are capable of hitting you?
Just because it took months, doesn't mean it wasn't rushed. Obviously they weren't prepared for what came after the war, they didn't have good intel, or lied about what they did know(you choose). To me when we are going to destroy a nation and rebuild it, planning for months and then moving into action is a rush. We went to the UN at first, and inspectors were allowed back in. They were still there and got the Iraqis to start destroying weapons that violated the agreements. The French asked for 30 more days before agreeing to military action and that was denied. The FRench and Russians were also about make an offer, as well. Considering that had we waited half a year or year, there would have been no danger to us. So yes there was a Rush. Considering that plans are inadequate, evidence was wrong, Saddam is on the loose, we are losing troops almost daily, etc. Taking more time and going about it a different way might have been very wise indeed.
