Why Al Gore deserves the Peace Prize

By Ellen Ratner
Getting up Friday morning, I immediately checked the Web to find out if former Vice President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. He did, and I was excited for him and for the country. As soon as I got on the radio, talk radio hosts started saying that the decision was political, that it was just another way to stick it to President Bush and that Al Gore's work on the environment would do nothing to promote peace. I could not disagree more.



Back in 1998, when Vice President Gore was developing his campaign for president, then adviser Dick Morris advised the vice president to go with the issue that he was most passionate about: the environment. Dick had done the research and found that this was an issue that resonated with many Americans, and Al Gore presented as very genuine on this issue. Given his reputation as "wooden" and "wonky," he needed the infusion of "genuine." Unfortunately, he did not take Dick Morris's advice, and depending on your perspective, he either won or lost the election by a hair.

As the contested election found its way to the Supreme Court, signs abounded from pro-Bush Republicans saying "Sore Loserman," a play on words for Gore's running mate. Gore was gracious, even presiding over the Electoral College count in the Senate. That alone is worth a Peace Prize in a modern democracy. Gore chose to sit out a rematch, telling people he did not want to put the country through a replay of 2000 election vitriol.

Now, fast forward to 2007 and the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore received the Prize underscoring that many citizens of the world believe global warming is man-made not God-made. In fact, he shared the Prize with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That group, known as the IPCC, studied climate change for more than five years, and presented its report in February 2007. The report studied the work of more than 2,000 scientists. It concluded, "the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution." In addition the IPCC found that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal as is now evident from the observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea levels."

So, how is it that peace is related to global warming? Simple, a three letter word – oil. Oil is an easy-to-obtain fossil fuel in countries that have caused much destabilization in the world. The top 10 countries that hold the world's oil reserves are Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, Venezuela, Russia, Libya and Nigeria. Need I say more? Alan Greenspan in his memoir said it best, "the Iraq War is largely about oil." If the United States was really concerned about a terrible dictator and genocide, it could have chosen multiple countries in Africa in which to make "regime change" take place. We chose to "intervene" in a country that had oil.

If the case for eliminating global warming from oil isn't enough, consider the Amazon. The destruction of the forest, an area the size of France, has caused murder, the loss of biodiversity and the end of peaceful lives for the indigenous people of the Amazon. The Amazon is just one small example of what we may be headed for. A report requested by the "Yoda" of the Pentagon, Andrew Marshall, and written by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, concludes that "In short, while the U.S. itself will be relatively better off and with more adaptive capacity, it will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling internally, large number of refugees washing up on its shores and Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life." Well said, and not by liberals with a political investment in the crowning of Al Gore as peacemaker. The Pentagon said it; global warming must be addressed if we are to achive world peace. Al Gore was one of the first politicians to see it and promote the cause and for that he richly deserves the prize.

50 years since Sputnik, who cares?

By Ellen Ratner
Last week I wrote about the "No Child Left Behind" bill, which is currently up for reauthorization in Congress. I received several e-mails asking me, "Where in the Constitution does it say that education is a responsibility of the federal government?" I replied that in the Constitution's first paragraph mandates that the federal government "promote the general welfare." That constitutional phrase would be enough to have a federal role in education. However, the Constitution also requires the federal government to "provide for the common defense." My column this week connects the two, education and defense. They have a symbiotic relationship.



Fifty years ago this week, the old Soviet Union launched Sputnik. A panic came over our families, teachers and schools. The United States public schools turned on a dime. I was in first grade, and within two years, everything about the way we learned math and science changed overnight. By the end of third grade, "the new math" was arriving in our classrooms. Flash cards still existed, but so did hastily made "workbooks" that taught the "rule of order," prime numbers and unusual word problems. By fifth grade, we attended "extra credit" sessions that consisted of learning about base numbers and how computers thought in 1s and 0s.

Americans felt threatened by the Soviet Union's demonstrated excellence in science. We were convinced they could dominate in science, math and the space program. We were determined to not allow this to happen. In the past 50 years, we've seen quite a shift. We've forfeited our midcentury zeal. Reflecting this concern, the National Science Foundation issued a report this week titled, "A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education System." The document outlines what we must do to stay competitive.

The facts leading up to the preparation of this report are sobering. Of the students graduating with PhDs in physical sciences in 1980, 22 percent were foreign students and 76 percent were American. By 1997, 36.6 percent of doctoral degrees in physical sciences were held by foreign students. Only about half of those foreign students remained in the United States. Today, in some fields such as Aerospace Engineering, less than half of graduate students are from the United States. Seventy percent of all Texas Tech master's and doctoral degrees in computer science are earned by students who do not hold a U.S. passport.

These statistics reflect a major problem in our precollegiate and pregraduate math and science education. Students don't have preparation to enter math and science fields, and as a result, our own citizens cannot populate the graduate programs in this country. According to the National Science Foundation, almost 30 percent of high school graduates enter college unprepared for first year coursework or arrive at the workplace without the mathematical, scientific and technical skills that employers require. College is too late to do basic education, and it is not getting accomplished in grades K-12.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is wrong with our rocket science in this country. First, we need to reprioritize focus and resources just as we did in the 1950s. We will need real federal coordination and real federal money. No one at the Department of Education coordinates these efforts. It is amazing in the 21st century, but the United States of America has no agreement on what key concepts should be taught at what grade level. A student who moves from middle school in one state to another might miss all science education.

School boards are more concerned with politics than they are educational outcomes. They would rather engage in debates about issues like "intelligent design" education than spend time coordinating with the business community to find out what students need to do to be prepared to work in a competitive world.

Even the most anti-government Libertarian would agree that for our "common defense" we must remain competitive, but we have done little to keep the competitive Sputnik spirit alive that we had midcentury. Actually, forget about competitive spirit, it's really more a matter of economic survival. We are told not to worry about our manufacturing base going offshore because we will be the technology nation. Excuse me, but the only technology our K-12 and college students are engaged in right now is downloading pirated music and movies and "texting" their little hearts out. There is still time to reverse this trend with enough bipartisan political will.

'No Child Left Behind' is working

By Ellen Ratner
This week we got some news on the educational abilities of American students. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the NAEP, test showed some progress in math and reading. Minority children still have some major gaps, but test scores are moving in the right direction. The fact that the testing is happening on a national basis at all is a sign of achievement and progress.



These tests and standards under the "No Child Left Behind" law have been riddled with controversy, but we are finally seeing how our students measure up when given the same test and held to the same standard from sea to shining sea. States can no longer lower their standards in order to appear superior.

It is very easy to look at the various stakeholders in the education debate and stereotype groups with sound bites such as, "We're simply teaching to the test," or "Unions don't care." But these sound bites oversimplify a complex landscape in American education. Local governments want to be the ones who determine how their schools are operated, and the federal government wants to make sure that the federal dollars are earning a return on investment. The only way to do this is to hold local schools to national standards.

The Bush administration has been raked over the coals for various reasons concerning "No Child Left Behind." Few, however, can honestly criticize the president for setting the goal to have every eighth grader on "grade level" by the year 2014. Before "No Child Left Behind," there was nothing to strive for, no goals, and no standards.

Politics across national, state, local and special interests groups has made "No Child Left Behind" a tough subject. I was at a recent event discussing education, and someone said, "National standards, the Republicans don't like "national" and the Democrats don't like 'standards.'" That is the problem in a nutshell.

As with most education, learning is often best achieved with a gifted teacher. I have recently been impressed with the instruction Mrs. Bush has brought to our schools and stakeholders. She has reached out to members of Congress, the United Nations and national and international press on the issue of education and literacy. She has tried to push though the resistance of those who don't want standards or testing.

This has not been an easy course to teach. At a recent press briefing with Education Secretary Spellings and Mrs. Bush, it became clear that the predictable alignments are not so predictable. The business community and the civil rights community want standards accountability. On the other side, some of the "abolish the Department of Education," Republicans and the National Education Association find themselves on the same side of the fence. However, the American Federation of Teachers is moving towards the setting of national standards. Considering that there were no national standards five years ago, this is monumental progress.

I'm not saying "No Child Left Behind" is perfect. I think we need a larger investment in education if we are going to be competitive in the world. And yes, while there have been some indications of "teaching to the test," on balance, reading comprehension is reading comprehension and it does not matter if you are reading about the founding of the United States of American or the "Dick and Jane" books that many older Americans had to suffer though as elementary school children.

Some critics of "No Child Left Behind" testing program say the scores were rising before the law went into effect. Others, correctly point out those individual states can set standards. But it's hard to argue with the black and white truth, which is the fact that math scores are up, and they are the highest they have been in 17 years. There is still a long way to go with reading scores needing lots of help before proficiency is met. There are still huge gaps in the differences between whites and minorities. But, the system was broken with no accountability and no national testing reports. Now we know where the deficiencies are and where we need to invest more resources to give all Americans equal opportunity.

Mrs. Bush has taken on a political minefield. There will be at least one and maybe two new presidents occupying the White House by 2014, the deadline for every child to meet grade level standards. If this is going to work, it is going to take a strong educator who is willing to use the bully pulpit to make it happen. Mrs. Bush has taken the challenge. Let's hope that the 2008 presidential candidates put it on their agenda too.

General's report was pure politics

By Ellen Ratner
I would like to share some thoughts about last week's Ambassador Crocker/Gen. Petreaus hearings. While I didn't attend the House hearings, I was present as the Senate grilled these men. Afterwards, I watched the same hearings on television. First, let me assure my readers that being in the room is a very different experience from seeing it on TV.



One thing that filled the room but didn't quite show up on the boob tube was that these hearings were political. A few members of both parties were there for real information. However, a majority of the solons simply wanted to score political points. That being said, it must be added that Gen. Patreaus was also dribbling a political basketball and taking some rim shots. I would ask my readers to use their heads – you don't rise as high as the general without knowing how to navigate Washington politics.

Gen. David Petraeus

This revealed by the very maps that Patraeus had prepared for the hearings, and which were handed out to both the senators and the press. Arrows representing threats to Iraq from its neighbors filled the maps. Lots of arrows from Iran and Syria. But not one from Saudi Arabia! Any private who has been to Iraq knows that Saudi Arabian nationals show up among the captured foreign fighters like rain in April. Any expert on terrorism knows that in regards to Iraq, the Saudis are likened to a "jihad production belt."

So why was the general silent? While it may be true that the Saudi royals fret about al-Qaida and other militant groups and seems committed to rooting them out (in Saudi Arabia), everyone knows that they've been a lot less successful in staunching their country's second greatest export after oil: terrorism. For Crocker and Patreaus to remain silent here speaks loudly that these two are tuned in the Saudi Oil Lobby, whose scandalous relationship with the Bush family is public knowledge. Moreover, it degrades the credibility of Petraeus and Crocker, two otherwise fine public servants.

Gen. Patraeus also understands that the Pentagon will still be around long after Bush goes bye-bye in January, '09. In 16 months, it'll be "Yes, President Hillary Clinton" or "Yes, President Guliani." Cautiously, carefully, I dare say prudently, he put some daylight between himself and the Bush administration on his overall assessment. Did any of you hear him utter the phrase, "democracy in Iraq" once? (If you thought so, see a doctor – the general never breathed a word of it.) He questioned the ability to sustain the commitment and, wisely, avoided speculating on what he would do if Iraq were in the same soup one year from now.

This is not the first time Congress has heard from generals who commanded our troops in Iraq. Gen. Casey testified in 2004 that we were "broadly on track" to accomplish these objectives by 2005. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez also testified a good "who-what-me?" when it came to the hot potato of authorizing 7th century interrogation techniques for Iraqi detainees. (This despite the appearance of smoking-gun memo making clear that he knew all about it.) Congress often gives generals a pass because no politician wants to be seen by voters back home as being un-American. In fact, neither party's senators asked very tough questions. (Makes me think that if Alberto Gonzales had testified wearing a uniform, he'd still be attorney general.)

Some of the hearing was spent on the MoveOn.org full page ad renaming the general as "General Betray-us." Dems wouldn't condemn (too much dough in the coffers from MoveOn) while Republicans had a field day. Other agendas were front and center. Sen. Lieberman asked about training camps in Iran and why we weren't doing much about them. Sen. Chambliss asked about Gen. Patraeus' son going to parachute jump school and the fact that he would most likely wind up in Iraq. But the best question came from Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. She's facing re-election next year and wanted to know what Petreaus would do if Iraq was in the same soup next year. If the general had ideas, he wasn't talking.

The saddest part is that neither Gen. Patraeus nor Ambassador Crocker left anything in writing – no report that could be muddled or debated, nothing with figures that could be verified or inspected. In short, nothing that Congress or the American people could brainstorm to try for good resolution of Bush's mess. The testimony as given served the political needs of those who needed to look "presidential" on national security; the political needs of those running for re-election; the political needs of those who seek a wider war with Iran or Syria; and the political need of president to buy more time for a bad policy. It served everybody's needs – except that of we the people.

What a wasted opportunity.

Still breathing the horror of 9/11

By Ellen Ratner
Tomorrow is the anniversary of 9/11. It is a day that all of us will never forget. That day has left many scars, some psychological, some physical, some financial, but this week's Government Accountability Office report indicates that there are still open wounds from that day. The GAO report is titled "World Trade Center: EPA's Most Recent Test and Clean Program Raises Concerns That Need to Be Addressed to Better Prepare for Indoor Contamination Following Disaster."



It was obvious from the start that many offices and residences were contaminated due to the collapse of the World Trade Center. With dust-filled apartments, many residents left the area. Funds were provided for the cleaning and testing of these buildings littered with asbestos, lead, glass fibers and pulverized concrete.

Despite cleaning efforts, approximately 1 percent of the residences were still affected by asbestos. The community raised concerns about how the pre and post testing took place, demanding to know what was tested and where it was tested. The EPA finally responded with a second look/program. However many problems with that testing program are now coming to light. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pointed out that many of the community's concerns were also raised by the EPA's Ombudsman Robert Martin. Mr. Martin's concerns got someone's attention besides New York City workers and residence, as his office was locked and his files confiscated. The Ombudsman's Office suffered a "reorganization", and no one heard from them on this topic again – death by reorganization.
Then the Scientific Advisory Committee added its voice to the community concerns about the testing, pointing out that it did not even take place for some substances such as Mercury. The committee also revealed that there were no tests in areas that were surely affected such as parts of Brooklyn. Again, no meaningful government action took place. What is worse is that the testing did not include most offices, nor did it test the buildings as a whole, such as testing the HVAC systems. The testing also did not include areas such as under beds or behind refrigerators.

What is of more concern is how the EPA failed to educate the people who were living and working in the shadow of the World Trade Center as to the true nature of the contamination. They released only the test figures on asbestos and other contaminants after they had cleaned a building. Of course, for the contaminants that were never tested, no figures have been released. We have all heard about "sick building syndrome," but the 9/11 contamination brings this syndrome to a whole new level.

Rep. Nadler also pointed out that the EPA cannot say with certainty, "that not even a single building in the area is free of World Trade Center contamination." He argues that many people in New York will "become sick because of lingering environmental toxins in their homes, workplaces and schools."

Sept. 11 took the lives of 2,603 New Yorkers, but many more are still dying as a result of that horrible day. It is estimated that it is going to cost almost $250 million a year, for the next several years, to care for those who have had medical problems due to their participation in the cleanup and other problems related to 9/11. There are currently two bills in Congress – one in the House and one in the Senate that earmark about $50 million towards the cost of medical care for those people. That figure falls far short of the cost.

We are spending billions on the war in Iraq to make sure that the "bad guys" don't come over here while many first responders and people who live and work in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn do not know what is really coming to them through their air conditioning systems. They have no idea what they are breathing, and there is no clear guidance from the federal government as to what contaminants may still be lingering in the area.

This situation is shameful. Americans deserve better from Washington. Sept. 11's legacy of loss lives on as good American citizens continue to die, only this time the loss is perpetrated by our own government, not terrorists.