|
NEWS
Mar 28, 2009 23:17:53 GMT 4
Post by skywatcher on Mar 28, 2009 23:17:53 GMT 4
Stan, isn't there something odd about those dates from your 6:39 am post? I mean..let's forget there was a HUGE earthquake in Chile with tons of bad aftershocks on 7/30/95 and 8/1/95 and that on 8/1/95 Earth crossed the plane of Saturn's ring. And we can put aside that Isreal experience an enormous blackout on 6/8/95...and that the Kamchatka peninsula had a huge quake on 9/8/98..... etc, etc, etc., There is something yelling at me about these numbers and I can't see it. Bug's me bad. I haven't even been to the theater yet to see KNOWING. Maybe I should not go. 41. 41 I went to see Knowing yesterday. I walked out of the theater (I had seen the 10:15 a.m. matinee), went to my car and cried myself silly.
After reading all that has occurred today, thanks to Marci and Dan, I know, our future is ours to create. With love and hope in our hearts, our tomorrows look brighter. We are the only ones that stand in our way. We are the ones we have been looking for.
To know, and to still move forward in love is the most heroic act of all.
Nancy
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 0:17:26 GMT 4
Post by towhom on Mar 29, 2009 0:17:26 GMT 4
Nuclear agency fails to elect new leader Western nations, developing countries at odds over IAEA chiefMSNBC updated 4:37 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 27, 2009www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29916838/VIENNA - Two men with differing visions for the International Atomic Energy Agency failed Friday to win enough support to become its new chief, splitting the vote among the agency's developed and developing countries. A meeting of the agency's 35-nation board was adjourned prematurely after neither Yukiya Amano of Japan nor Abdul Samad Minty of South Africa got the required two-thirds majority needed for victory. With an inconclusive initial attempt to find a successor for IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, board chairwoman Taous Feroukhi of Algeria was expected on Monday to invite member nations to submit — or resubmit — candidates within the next four weeks before a new meeting. "The slate of candidates is considered to have been wiped clean," she told reporters. That meant that both Amano and Minty could try again — something the South African reserved judgment on, in comments after the end of the secret balloting. But a Western diplomat familiar with Amano's intentions said the 61-year old Japanese had already said he would run in any new race if this week's meeting failed to settle the issue of ElBaradei's successor. He asked for anonymity because his information was confidential. Looking for consensusAmano, generally endorsed by Western and like-minded nations that represent a majority on the board, led throughout six rounds of voting over two days, in one instance falling short of the threshold by only a single vote. But he failed to win support with developing nations, most of whom endorsed Minty. Minty, 69, expressed disappointment. He suggested that Western nations had missed an opportunity to bridge differences with developing countries by failing to endorse his candidacy. "We were hopeful that those that advocated change and a relationship with the developing world based on trust and partnership would — in this important election process — have implemented these noble ideas," he said. "Sadly, it appears as this has only remained as good intentions." ElBaradei said he hoped a consensus choice could be found. "I just hope that the agency has (a) candidate acceptable to all, north, south, east, west, because that is needed," he said. Only one of the four men who have headed the IAEA since its establishment 52 years ago has gathered enough support to be elected outright without the need for a second board session. Still, Minty's comments — and the clear split in the vote along political lines — reflected the deep divisions between the United States and its allies and the nations most critical of the West for its alleged indifference to the problems of have-not countries. Eye on IranIran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment has exemplified those differences ever since Tehran became a topic of IAEA investigation after revelations seven years ago that it had a hidden nuclear program. The representatives of some developing nations privately say they share Western fears that Iran may seek to use enrichment to develop weapons. But as a bloc, they tend to take Iran's side when it says it has a right to an enrichment program as a way of generating nuclear energy, arguing that curbing Tehran's authority to do so could set a precedent that would restrict the technology to nations already possessing it — most of them rich countries. This puts them in opposition to the U.S. and European allies at the forefront of attempts to pressure Iran to give up enrichment, with clash after clash on the issue deepening the chasm. While the Obama administration has said it is ready to break with its predecessor and talk directly to Iran over the nuclear impasse, Washington still wants an IAEA head sympathetic to Washington — an ideal ElBaradei did not always fulfill. That view of Elbaradei also plays a role in the divide over a successor. 'A second ElBaradei'Before the voting, the U.S. and its allies had made clear, without publicly saying so, that they favor Amano over Minty because Washington sees the Japanese as someone who would be content to manage the IAEA without thrusting himself into the political fray. Minty, in contrast, was seen as more likely to challenge the West — as has ElBaradei — if he felt it was the right thing to do. Washington unsuccessfully lobbied in 2005 to block his appointment to another four-year term because his statements on Iraq and Iran were peppered with barely disguised criticisms of U.S. policy. Western nations also felt that that the 66-year-old Egyptian was occasionally too easy on Iran in the agency's nuclear investigation. Support for Amano from the U.S., Canada, the European Union and others was to an extent less because he was the ideal candidate and more "because of fears that Minty would become a second ElBaradei," said the diplomat — whose country voted for the Japanese. More on Mohamed ElBaradei:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11881780/?q=Mohamed%20ElBaradei&p=1&st=1&sm=userMore on the IAEA:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11881780/?q=IAEA&p=1&st=1&sm=user
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 0:30:35 GMT 4
Post by towhom on Mar 29, 2009 0:30:35 GMT 4
The fierce debate behind Obama's Afghan planBiden urged caution against a quagmire; military argued for more troopsMSNBC updated 5:36 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 28, 2009www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29927145/WASHINGTON - President Obama ’s plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan came after an internal debate in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned against getting into a political and military quagmire, while military advisers argued that the Afghanistan war effort could be imperiled without even more troops. All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda , as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there. The commanders in the field wanted a firmer and long-term commitment of more combat troops beyond the 17,000 that Mr. Obama had already promised to send , and a pledge that billions of dollars would be found to significantly expand the number of Afghan security forces. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , pressed for an additional 4,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan — but only to serve as trainers. They tempered the commanders’ request and agreed to put off any decision to order more combat troops to Afghanistan until the end of this year, when the strategy’s progress could be assessed. During these discussions, Mr. Biden was the voice of caution, reminding the group members that they would have to sell their plans to a skeptical Congress. This article is based on interviews with half a dozen officials who were involved in the debate. All requested anonymity because they were discussing meetings that involved classified material and the shaping of policy.CompromiseMr. Obama left a final White House meeting in the Situation Room last Friday signaling to participants that he was close to a decision, but that he wanted to get comfortable with what he was going to do. He mulled the issue while at the Camp David presidential retreat over the weekend. On Wednesday, he told his top aides that he had made up his mind. In announcing a plan on Friday that could be his signature foreign policy effort, Mr. Obama said that he would send more troops — some 4,000 — but stipulated that they would not carry out combat missions, and would instead be used to train the Afghan Army and the national police. He left himself open to the possibility of sending more as the situation warrants. The debate over the past few weeks offered a glimpse into how Mr. Obama makes decisions. In this case, he chose a compromise between his political and military advisers that some critics say includes some strategic holes, such as a reliance on the same sort of vague guidelines that proved difficult to carry out in Iraq. It also offers insight into the role of Mr. Biden and other members of a foreign policy team that includes many powerful figures vying for Mr. Obama’s attention. In the end the plan is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among his advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world. Focus on Al Qaeda, TalibanBy contrast, at a White House news conference in which he invoked concerns of another possible terrorist attack on United States soil, Mr. Obama framed the issue as one that relies on one central tenet: protecting Americans from attacks like the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. To do so, he said he would increase aid to Pakistan and would, for the first time, set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both countries. "The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said Friday in announcing his decision. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. "So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan," he said. "We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." Even as the White House emphasized its intention to create benchmarks to measure progress made by the Afghan and Pakistani governments in combating Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups, some Congressional officials briefed on the plan voiced skepticism about how realistic those goals were. Part of Mr. Obama’s plan includes sending hundreds of additional diplomats and civilian experts into the region. Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, submitted a classified review to the president, and among its 13 recommendations were to increase the number of American ground forces, with significant emphasis on "enablers," such as the new training teams. He also called for rapidly expanding Afghanistan’s forces to take over security operations from the United States and NATO , as well as to expand the counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan and increase the ability of Pakistan’s military to carry out counterinsurgency operations.During the 90-minute debate last Friday afternoon, Mr. Obama, flanked by his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones , on his left, and Mr. Biden on his right, went around the table to elicit the final views of his national security team. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke , the president’s top aide on Afghanistan and Pakistan, favored wide-ranging coordinated efforts which would concentrate on corruption in Afghanistan as well as focus on training local officials and transforming agriculture in the country away from the notorious poppy fields that have been used to fuel the Taliban insurgency. During the debate, the senior administration officials said, Mr. Biden sought to put strict parameters on the size of the additional force deployed to Afghanistan and to ensure there was a specific mission for them. Mr. Biden also cast the debate in terms of what was achievable in Mr. Obama’s first term, administration officials said. Insight from Biden's visitMr. Biden, White House officials said, was heavily influenced by the trip he took to Afghanistan and Pakistan just before the inauguration in January. He observed to Mr. Obama that if you asked 10 people on the ground what American objectives were, he would get 10 different answers. That observation, aides said, carried weight with Mr. Obama and helped to lead to his decision to narrow the American goal in Afghanistan.Mr. Obama is dispatching Admiral Mullen and Mr. Holbrooke to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India next week to explain his new strategy to leaders there. Chief among the aims of the two men will be to try to get Pakistani and Indian officials, in particular, to turn down the volume in their never-ending conflict, in the hopes that the Pakistani military can turn its attention to the fight against insurgents in border regions, and away from fighting India.
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 0:39:05 GMT 4
Post by towhom on Mar 29, 2009 0:39:05 GMT 4
Space smells funny, astronauts say Likened to burnt gunpowder or the ozone smell of electrical equipmentMSNBC updated 7:36 p.m. ET, Fri., March. 27, 2009www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29921131/The smell of space will linger for the seven astronauts aboard the space shuttle Discovery long after they return to Earth on Saturday. "One thing I've heard people say before, but it wasn't so obvious, was the smell right when you open up that hatch," Discovery pilot Dominic "Tony" Antonelli said after a March 21 spacewalk. "Space definitely has a smell that's different than anything else." The odor, Antonelli said, could be smelled once spacewalkers locked the station airlock's outer hatch and reopened the inner door. Discovery is set to land at 1:39 p.m. EDT tomorrow at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida after a 13-day mission that delivered a new crewmember and the final set of U.S. solar wings to the International Space Station. It was after each of the three spacewalks performed by the shuttle crew that the spaceflyers detected the distinctive odor of space. Like ozone, or gunpowderJapanese astronaut Koichi Wakata, who launched to the station aboard Discovery and stayed behind when it left to join the outpost's crew, said he also could smell the odd odor that wafted in from outside the station. But both Antonelli and Wakata, who helped Discovery's spacewalkers climb in and out of their spacesuits, could not put words to the distinctive out-of-this-world scent. Former NASA astronaut Thomas Jones, a veteran of three spacewalks before retiring from spaceflying in 2001, thinks the odor could stem from atomic oxygen that clings to spacesuit fabric. "When you repressurize the airlock and get out of your suit, there is a distinct odor of ozone, a faint acrid smell," Jones told SPACE.com, adding that the smell is also similar to burnt gunpowder or the ozone smell of electrical equipment. "It's not noticeable inside the suit. The suit smells like plastic inside." The smell, he adds, only occurs on a shuttle or the space station after a spacewalk and is unmistakable to astronauts working with the spacesuits and equipment that was used in the vacuum of space. "In those tight spaces, your nose gets right next to the fabric," Jones said. "I like to think of it as getting a whiff of vacuum!" Headed homeThe three spacewalks performed by Discovery's crew occurred between March 19 and Monday as the astronauts installed the space station's final set of solar arrays to boost the orbiting laboratory to full power. The shuttle ferried Wakata — Japan's first long-term resident — to the space station, where he replaced NASA astronaut Sandra Magnus as a member of the outpost's three-person crew. Magnus is returning home aboard Discovery to complete a 4 1/2-month mission to the space station. The shuttle undocked from the space station on Wednesday. Discovery astronauts spent Friday checking the shuttle's systems for its planned landing tomorrow and speaking with students at Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii, President Barack Obama's high school alma mater. The spaceflyers spoke with President Obama before departing the space station.
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 0:53:11 GMT 4
Post by towhom on Mar 29, 2009 0:53:11 GMT 4
Obama, Medvedev to sign declaration on treatyNewsDaily Posted 2009/03/28 at 1:26 pm EDTwww.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52r0pb-us-obama-russia-start/MOSCOW — The United States and Russia will commit to new talks on reducing their nuclear arsenals when Barack Obama meets President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time next month, the Kremlin said on Saturday. The two leaders will also sign a document on U.S.-Russian relations in general at a meeting in London, and seek to coordinate policies on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan, Sergei Prikhodko, an aide to President Dmitry Medvedev, told reporters."We will seek to agree on the terms and timeframe for working on an agreement to replace the START treaty so that at our next meeting we can reach our first concrete agreements and conclude all of our work by year's end," Prikhodko said. Russian officials have said that finding agreement on a successor to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 1), which is due to expire in December 2009, is a priority in relations with the new U.S. administration.The START Treaty, signed in July 1991 by U.S. President George Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, led to the largest bilateral reductions of nuclear weapons in history. It was the result of nearly a decade of talks between the United States and the Soviet Union in the final years of the Cold War. At the time of agreement, the United States had developed more sophisticated ways to deliver warheads, but the Soviet Union had a larger arsenal of weapons. RESETING RELATIONSThe Obama administration has pledged to "reset" ties with Russia after they reached post-Cold War lows under former President George W. Bush. "A shared understanding is now taking shape that bilateral relations are getting a second chance that must not be missed. We are confident that London will be an important milestone along that path," Prikhodko said. Defense issues will take center stage, he said, adding that particular attention will be paid to nuclear non-proliferation. "North Korea and Iran are special issues, particularly in the context of Obama's announced plan to meet with Tehran on political-diplomatic terms."
Prikhodko also pointed to a range of opportunities the U.S. and Russia have for cooperation in Afghanistan, including in the transportation of supplies to the country, its social and economic development, and the training of Afghan troops.
"Expanding cooperation on Afghanistan is a major theme. There is potential for joint action that has not been fully utilized," Prikhodko said.He added, however, that Russia took a sober view of the issues dividing Moscow and Washington, especially U.S. plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Medvedev will lay out Russia's concerns over this plan during the one-hour meeting, Prikhodko said. "We fully understand the differences that divide us and harbor no illusions that they will be easily overcome," he said. "The theme (of missile defense) is far from closed and the options for agreeing an alternative course of action have not been exhausted at all." Medvedev and Obama have spoken on the phone and exchanged letters since Obama's inauguration on January 20 but this is to be their first official meeting as presidents. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this month for talks that were intended to soften the atmosphere before the presidents meet in London on the sidelines of the Group of 20 Summit. Diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington have fallen to their lowest since the Cold War in the past 12 months over Russia's war with Georgia and the planned U.S. anti-missile system. Another sticking point has been Russian military sales and nuclear cooperation with U.S. foe Iran.
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 1:07:02 GMT 4
Post by skywatcher on Mar 29, 2009 1:07:02 GMT 4
The fierce debate behind Obama's Afghan planBiden urged caution against a quagmire; military argued for more troopsMSNBC updated 5:36 a.m. ET, Sat., March. 28, 2009www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29927145/WASHINGTON - President Obama ’s plan to widen United States involvement in Afghanistan came after an internal debate in which Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned against getting into a political and military quagmire, while military advisers argued that the Afghanistan war effort could be imperiled without even more troops. All of the president’s advisers agreed that the primary goal in the region should be narrow — taking aim at Al Qaeda , as opposed to the vast attempt at nation-building the Bush administration had sought in Iraq. The question was how to get there. The commanders in the field wanted a firmer and long-term commitment of more combat troops beyond the 17,000 that Mr. Obama had already promised to send , and a pledge that billions of dollars would be found to significantly expand the number of Afghan security forces. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , pressed for an additional 4,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan — but only to serve as trainers. They tempered the commanders’ request and agreed to put off any decision to order more combat troops to Afghanistan until the end of this year, when the strategy’s progress could be assessed. During these discussions, Mr. Biden was the voice of caution, reminding the group members that they would have to sell their plans to a skeptical Congress. This article is based on interviews with half a dozen officials who were involved in the debate. All requested anonymity because they were discussing meetings that involved classified material and the shaping of policy.CompromiseMr. Obama left a final White House meeting in the Situation Room last Friday signaling to participants that he was close to a decision, but that he wanted to get comfortable with what he was going to do. He mulled the issue while at the Camp David presidential retreat over the weekend. On Wednesday, he told his top aides that he had made up his mind. In announcing a plan on Friday that could be his signature foreign policy effort, Mr. Obama said that he would send more troops — some 4,000 — but stipulated that they would not carry out combat missions, and would instead be used to train the Afghan Army and the national police. He left himself open to the possibility of sending more as the situation warrants. The debate over the past few weeks offered a glimpse into how Mr. Obama makes decisions. In this case, he chose a compromise between his political and military advisers that some critics say includes some strategic holes, such as a reliance on the same sort of vague guidelines that proved difficult to carry out in Iraq. It also offers insight into the role of Mr. Biden and other members of a foreign policy team that includes many powerful figures vying for Mr. Obama’s attention. In the end the plan is a compromise that reflected all of the strains of the discussion among his advisers, one that is markedly different, though perhaps no less difficult, from the goals his predecessor set for the region. In speaking of Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush spoke of lofty goals that included building nations that could stand as models of democracy in the Muslim world. Focus on Al Qaeda, TalibanBy contrast, at a White House news conference in which he invoked concerns of another possible terrorist attack on United States soil, Mr. Obama framed the issue as one that relies on one central tenet: protecting Americans from attacks like the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. To do so, he said he would increase aid to Pakistan and would, for the first time, set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in both countries. "The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan," Mr. Obama said Friday in announcing his decision. "Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. "So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies — the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks — are in Pakistan and Afghanistan," he said. "We have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." Even as the White House emphasized its intention to create benchmarks to measure progress made by the Afghan and Pakistani governments in combating Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups, some Congressional officials briefed on the plan voiced skepticism about how realistic those goals were. Part of Mr. Obama’s plan includes sending hundreds of additional diplomats and civilian experts into the region. Admiral Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman, submitted a classified review to the president, and among its 13 recommendations were to increase the number of American ground forces, with significant emphasis on "enablers," such as the new training teams. He also called for rapidly expanding Afghanistan’s forces to take over security operations from the United States and NATO , as well as to expand the counternarcotics effort in Afghanistan and increase the ability of Pakistan’s military to carry out counterinsurgency operations.During the 90-minute debate last Friday afternoon, Mr. Obama, flanked by his national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones , on his left, and Mr. Biden on his right, went around the table to elicit the final views of his national security team. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke , the president’s top aide on Afghanistan and Pakistan, favored wide-ranging coordinated efforts which would concentrate on corruption in Afghanistan as well as focus on training local officials and transforming agriculture in the country away from the notorious poppy fields that have been used to fuel the Taliban insurgency. During the debate, the senior administration officials said, Mr. Biden sought to put strict parameters on the size of the additional force deployed to Afghanistan and to ensure there was a specific mission for them. Mr. Biden also cast the debate in terms of what was achievable in Mr. Obama’s first term, administration officials said. Insight from Biden's visitMr. Biden, White House officials said, was heavily influenced by the trip he took to Afghanistan and Pakistan just before the inauguration in January. He observed to Mr. Obama that if you asked 10 people on the ground what American objectives were, he would get 10 different answers. That observation, aides said, carried weight with Mr. Obama and helped to lead to his decision to narrow the American goal in Afghanistan.Mr. Obama is dispatching Admiral Mullen and Mr. Holbrooke to Afghanistan, Pakistan and India next week to explain his new strategy to leaders there. Chief among the aims of the two men will be to try to get Pakistani and Indian officials, in particular, to turn down the volume in their never-ending conflict, in the hopes that the Pakistani military can turn its attention to the fight against insurgents in border regions, and away from fighting India. Another war, no sooner do we plan to pull out of Iraq, now we are going to fight a war on terrorism in Afganistan. I tried to explain this to my son just this morning, his comment, "another war is another war regardless of how they want to define it. People die." Why can't we listen and learn from our children?
Nancy
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 1:11:57 GMT 4
Post by towhom on Mar 29, 2009 1:11:57 GMT 4
Israeli army disperses protest in West Bank townNewsDaily Posted 2009/03/28 at 4:01 pm EDTwww.newsdaily.com/stories/tre52r26b-us-palestinians-israel/HEBRON, West Bank — Israeli soldiers used teargas on Saturday to disperse some 50 demonstrators protesting against Jewish settlement and Israeli closures in the West Bank, the Israeli army and Palestinian witnesses said. An Israeli army spokeswoman said soldiers dispersed the Palestinian and Israeli protesters in Hebron's Old City after they disturbed public order in an area under Israeli control. Video footage from the scene showed Israeli soldiers pushing demonstrators, including Israeli Arab lawmaker Mohammad Barakeh. Israeli and Palestinian demonstrators said the protest was part of several events aimed at marking Land Day, the annual commemoration of protests in 1976 against Israel's appropriation of Arab-owned land in Galilee.Several Palestinian youths threw stones at Israeli troops after soldiers fired teargas to disperse the crowd, Palestinian witnesses said. Three Palestinians were treated for gas inhalation, they added. Some 650 Jewish settlers live in fortified enclaves guarded by Israeli troops in Hebron, a city of 180,000 Palestinians, and the city has long been a flashpoint.
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 1:16:39 GMT 4
Post by towhom on Mar 29, 2009 1:16:39 GMT 4
GCSE science 'dumbed down', says exam watchdogThe Independent By Richard Garner, Education Editor Friday, 27 March 2009www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gcse-science-dumbed-down-says-exam-watchdog-1655350.htmlStandards in GCSE science exams have been "dumbed down", the Government's own exams watchdog warns today. In the most damning indictment ever delivered on the exam by a public body, Ofqual – the new exams regulatory body – says the standards of the examination give "serious cause for concern". Its verdict will be seen as a vindication of more than 200 independent schools that have ditched the exam in favour of the International GCSE – modelled along old O-level lines – because they believe the GCSE, particularly in science, is not providing a challenge for pupils.Embarrassingly for Schools Secretary Ed Balls, Ofqual's verdict comes just a fortnight after he tried to dismiss the independent schools' move as a "marketing strategy" to convince parents they were offering tougher exams at a time when the recession meant they were struggling to attract students. Ofqual's concern is over a new GCSE syllabus introduced in 2006 with students awarded grades for the first time last summer. Schools minister Jim Knight acknowledged last night the findings could dent public confidence in the exam. In its report, Ofqual says its main concern is over the quality of assessment – adding that the exam does not challenge the brightest pupils enough, and that it is now easier to get an A or C grade. It says it is concerned the question types used provided insufficient opportunity for more able candidates to demonstrate the extent of their scientific knowledge, understanding and skills. Geoff Lucas, secretary of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, representing 250 of the most elite private schools including Eton and Harrow, said: "Anyone asking why so many independent schools are switching to the IGCSE – particularly in science – need only read this latest Ofqual report."
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 4:18:18 GMT 4
Post by vigusa on Mar 29, 2009 4:18:18 GMT 4
For anyone interested, I posted a brief summary of the past week's events (only from my personal point of view, which is unconnected to the Majestic or any intelligence agency, is quite connected with the J-Rods, and is very connected with all humanity): www.welcometotheuniverse.com/article_280309.htmlLet me know if you have any comments or questions in regards to my rather brief summary of the events. I am taking a few days off. Have a great day, everyone. Excellent post vishvasattva !!!... really appreciate it )
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 5:16:19 GMT 4
Post by 41n350e on Mar 29, 2009 5:16:19 GMT 4
Well, looks like I will have to watch this KNowing movie at least 2wice in order to hope to capture most of the clues. Sounds like all theatres should offer debriefing services after each showing.
Thanks , skywatcher.
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 5:50:01 GMT 4
Post by fr33ksh0w2012 on Mar 29, 2009 5:50:01 GMT 4
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 6:13:15 GMT 4
Post by Eagles Disobey on Mar 29, 2009 6:13:15 GMT 4
Before the posting of the transcript, (a signed copy of which is now in the hands of their Legal Agent, containing the signatures and wax seals of the Eagles), the Eagles wish to remind everyone that just because the date which the J-Rods knew as their T2 date, now in our past, it does not lessen our need to focus on Unity for the future! The passage through this energetic period does not conclude until after 2016. We know not what the future is going to bring, and that was part of the aim: IT IS UP TO ALL OF US TO CREATE OUR FUTURE! IT'S IN OUR HANDS!
EAGLES DISOBEY!
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 6:22:18 GMT 4
Post by fr33ksh0w2012 on Mar 29, 2009 6:22:18 GMT 4
AWW.. KEWL POST A SHOT OF THE WAX SEAL SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT ERM.. IS IT RED OR BLACK OR YELLOW!! TRY NOT TO BREAK THE SEAL WHEN YOU TAKE THE PHOTO!!
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 6:27:58 GMT 4
Post by papat on Mar 29, 2009 6:27:58 GMT 4
Before the posting of the transcript, (a signed copy of which is now in the hands of their Legal Agent, containing the signatures and wax seals of the Eagles), the Eagles wish to remind everyone that just because the date which the J-Rods knew as their T2 date, now in our past, it does not lessen our need to focus on Unity for the future! The passage through this energetic period does not conclude until after 2016. We know not what the future is going to bring, and that was part of the aim: IT IS UP TO ALL OF US TO CREATE OUR FUTURE! IT'S IN OUR HANDS!
EAGLES DISOBEY! I have a dream, a song to sing To help me cope with anything If you see the wonder of a fairy tale You can take the future even if you fail I believe in angels Something good in everything I seeI believe in angels When I know the time is right for me Ill cross the stream - I have a dream I have a dream, a fantasy To help me through reality And my destination makes it worth the while Pushing through the darkness still another mile I believe in angels Something good in everything I seeI believe in angels When I know the time is right for me Ill cross the stream - I have a dream Ill cross the stream - I have a dream I have a dream, a song to sing To help me cope with anything If you see the wonder of a fairy tale You can take the future even if you fail I believe in angels Something good in everything I see I believe in angels When I know the time is right for me Ill cross the stream - I have a dream Ill cross the stream - I have a dream
|
|
|
NEWS
Mar 29, 2009 6:32:30 GMT 4
Post by fr33ksh0w2012 on Mar 29, 2009 6:32:30 GMT 4
HI PAPAT, WHAT ARE YA DOIN'!!! ;D
|
|