Independent Reading Log For Accelerated Reader Books: Fill & Download for Free

Hi, Zanele,First, you have to make a big deal of this reading. You have to “sell” it on how it’s going to be fun/interesting/important. Enthusiasm!Then, with them following along, read aloud the first paragraph. (Get them hooked)Then stop and have them guess what comes/happens next. They will have to read to find out.A lot depends on how old your readers are, but here are some strategies:have pairs of students take turn reading aloud to each otherhave them read only a page, and then answer a questiongive them a reading log that has one question for every page (page # marked) that they must answer in writing before going to the next page.The hardest reading in high school were Shakespeare plays. We read these aloud, going around the entire class, line by line. It was slow going, but the only way, since we had to stop constantly to explain, ask questions, etc.For independent reading in elementary school, there is nothing better than Accelerated Reader (the computer test at the end of the book)Good luck!

While I cannot answer for Philippines, I might be able to add a few insights as to why Myanmar and developed country status are not yet synonymous despite, from an outsider’s view, Myanmar having favourable factors to rise to the top of the table of developed Asian nations.First, although I am no longer a citizen of Myanmar, I spent a good part of my childhood and pre-teen life there and continued to stay connected to my country of birth in a variety of ways: transferring to me knowledge about Myanmar history from oeuvre of established, dedicated local and foreign historians, honing my grasp of native tongue by refusing to use English at home, reading Myanmar books and educating myself on the doctrines of Theravada Buddhism. I will therefore proceed to answer utilising my real-life experience and knowledge combed from books.Reacting to the question of why Myanmar was a latecomer to development by analysis of only post-independence events is, in my humble opinion, not enough and perpetuates an already deeply-ingrained thinking that Myanmar was always great before military dictatorship seized power and wreaked economic hardships. I consider it better and more appropriate to answer the question by taking readers through history.Pre-colonial MyanmarOne prominent theory why Myanmar did not become developed is, quite ironically, based on the fact that Myanmar is rich in resources and adorned with fertile lands.In widely acclaimed The River of Lost Footsteps: A Personal History of Burma by Dr. Thant Myint U, this theory was a recurring theme and the respected historian expounded succinctly on the development of Burmese psyche which is markedly isolationist and inward-looking, compared to its closet neighbour, Thailand.Even for the mighty Bagan Kingdom (1044–1287) during which thousands of architecturally wonderful( pentagonal structures and widespread use of true arch) and aesthetically beautiful temples were erected, it was nonetheless an agrarian society with negligible external trade. The lands of Central Burma provided food; hills surrounding it provided forest-based products, minerals and precious stones. Numerous rivers watered the farmlands and gave plenty of fishes. It was as good a utopia as it can get.[Historians have continued to debate up to day how the technique of true arch reached Bagan Kingdom][one of Bagan’s many temples]Dr. Thant Myint U argued in the book that Myanmar’s existence as an self-sustaining agrarian kingdom before colonial times(1824–1948) laid much of foundation for a somewhat less international outlook among its people. They were largely not interested in eating a fair share of growing international trade. Why trade when the inland part of Myanmar (Myanmar proper encompassing regions of Mandalay, Shwebo, Innwa, Amarapura, Sagaing, Pyay, Taungoo) can give almost everything the Kingdom needs?Thus, not only were Myanmar Kings uncomfortable with having their capital close to seaports, the people in general too were not keen to get into trade with foreigners mooring at their shores. The best proof of this is provided by King Thalun of Resotred Toungoo dynasty (1629A.D. - 1648 A.D.) who moved the capital from port town Bago to Innwa, a place more than 400 miles north of Bago. Later Burmese chronicles paint him in laudatory terms for his kingdom-rebuilding efforts including the economy.However, if he and his successors are to be judged relative to monarchs reigning in the eastern neighbour Ayutthaya Kingdom, they form an unwise bunch of monarchs. Why?Innwa as a capital is cut off from the world, either by inland or coastal route. Any foreigner coming by sea-faring vessels will have to anchor at Bago and take a long river ride up 380 miles on Irrawaddy river; Similarly, land trade routes to China and Thailand involves crossing treacherous mountain ranges and rivers running with swift currents. In the absence of a normal stream of news and knowledge of outside world which can only results from participating in international trade, Burmese’s self-centred views ossified.Curiously enough, no Burmese chronicles ever mention this failing of Toungoo Kings(1635–1752). While King Narai of Ayutthaya(Thailand) was sending diplomatic missions to France and Europe in 1670s, Burmese Kings in an isolated part of the world were dallying with grandiose claims which, to mention a few, are like how their palace is the centre of universe and how the ruling dynasty lineage can be traced to the Sakkya tribe of Buddha.King Alaungpaya(1752-1760), the founder of Myanmar’s last Konbaung dynasty, knew a bit of rapidly transforming outside world brought about by scientific inventions in the west. He hence founded port-city Yangon(economic capital of present-day Myanmar) and appointed a trusted general to its governor. Compared to Toungoo dynasty, Konbaung did better when it comes to economic integration to the world, albeit not by a much larger degree. He still retreated to his birthplace in Myanmar heartland and built his palace there.It is therefore no surprise that in 1824, Burmese put a fierce resistance to the English army. Oblivious to the might and strength of the colonizing British, Burmese thought fighting the British was not different from their wars with Thailand, Assam and Manipur. Burmese vanquished all of them after all and they perhaps were under the delusion they could inflict same damage on British forces and drive them back.Alas, the first Anglo-Burmese war was for Burmese a wake-up call to learn how much the outside world have changed since its golden Bagan era. The war ended with a unfair treaty which demanded the Burmese Kingdom to pay a 1 million pounds indemnity (which some calculate it to be equal to 50 million euros today). Konbaung Kingdom also ceded to the victor some of its territories, Arakan, Assam, Manipur and Tenasserim.For Burmese that has long lived with pride in relative isolation , the defeat was a severe blow to their regional supremacy, a blow from which they would never recover in the face of marching boots of greedy marauding British forces.Myanmar under the British ruleForeign media organisations and international schools in Myanmar one moment would get super passionate about explaining how military’s mismanagement ruined Myanmar, the next they will be eerily silent on how the British rule was complicit in tearing the country apart.British had, by the end of first war with Myanmar, learnt of the unexploited riches of Myanmar, from jungle of teaks across the domain of Konbaung King to precious gemstones and crude oil wells. Following the first war, British sent numerous diplomatic missions and forced Myanmar Kings to accept the establishment of ‘diplomatic offices’ in Myanmar’s capital.Those diplomatic missions surveyed the country very thoroughly and were looking for weak points in anticipation of creating believable pretext to declare war on Myanmar. British’s mastery of trickery, craftiness, its spy network, and internal division in Konbaung court paved way for two more wars in 1852 and 1885 respectively, culminating in dethroning the last King of Myanmar,King Thibaw and sending him into exile in India.[Drawing of Colonel Henry Yule during his diplomatic mission to Myanmar in 1855]The complete annexation of Myanmar by British changed Myanmar in so many ways unimaginable to Burmese before.Firstly, British were blinded by vast natural riches Myanmar held and made no single effort to properly govern the newly annexed region. With no display of empathy, they simply ended the monarchy system, the only system Burmese had ever known.Instead of governing it as a single new colony, it incorporated Myanmar as a mere province of British India, allowing many foreigners from British India into Myanmar.By dismantling the monarchy, the colonizer also disregarded long established traditional inter-dependency between the monarchy and the Sangha(let’s call it the Buddhist church). British clearly favoured Christianity over Buddhism and allowed countless missionaries of almost every denomination into the region.Torrential influx of christian missionaries and people from British India later resulted in forming the foundation for several conflicts(which can still be felt today, for instance, Rohingya issue is just one of many).Why?Before being totally annexed, Myanmar was just like today: a core central region plus Shan hills characterised by Buddhist culture, which are surrounded by several other tribes like Kachin and Chin mostly inhabiting mountains and practising animism. What was not like today is that the concept of race/ethnicity was never a deciding point in wars and conflicts.Mountain tribes were left alone to peace so long as they did not pose a threat to the throne. Burmese Kings’ skirmishes with ‘Shan confederates’ were more or less territorial in nature; Wars with Thailand were motivated more by wealth of richer Ayutthaya Kingdom than by racial superiority complex. Victorious Burmese Kings brought people from defeated regions and resettled them in Myanmar proper. Myanmar culture grew by absorbing those of whichever groups it came into contact with. There never was something like ‘national identity based on race’ as we understand/interpret/enforce today.If anything, the only binding adhesive was adherence to Theravada Buddhism, which is why King Mindon(1853–1878), the second last King, using every resource in his power, tried to give his people a sense of unity by promoting Buddhism such as the construction of the Incomparable Monastery and sponsoring the convening of the fifth Buddhist council.[The incomparable monastery destroyed by fire]Unfortunately, King Mindon’s ambition of holding his subjects together by Buddhist culture was never to be fully realized. Christian missionaries went full-on in their conversion schemes and found much success among hill tribes(notably among Kachin, Chin, Kayah and Kayin). British understandably showed bias towards the newly-converted people and employed them in government and its army. They did so to sow discord between Buddhist majority and Christian minority. Their divide-and-rule tactic played Buddhists against Christians, Burmese against Shan, Kayin against Shan and so on.To make matters worse, Myanmar also became a magnet for millions of Indians. As I wrote above, availability of rich resources made Myanmar people less entrepreneurial, less trading-inclined and more laid-back. A majority of them were not ready to handle increased economic growth from logging, rice production and oil extraction under British rule. Generally, Burmese would rather spend their extra time indulging in cock fighting, betting games than exerting his state of mind on business dealings . So British brought in more business-minded and hardworking Indians .. .. .. in millions. By 1920s, Yangon, then the capital of Myanmar, was called New York of the East. Yagon was indeed a truly cosmopolitan city, bar the fact that native Burmese became a minority in their own city. A year after another, schism between poorer Buddhist rural Burma and richer cosmopolitan urban cities of Burma grew so wide as to become impossible to bridge. Much of economy fell into the hands of foreigners with whom Burmese had limited interaction till the annexation.Reaction from the Burmese(and Buddhists) were predictable. Xenophobia was inevitable. Nationalistic sentiments rose, an identity was formed around being a Buddhist and speaking Burmese. British retorted by ceding a little to Burmese’s requests and granting more rights to their favourite groups. Such developments hardened tribal mindset like ‘my religion is better than yours’ or ‘your race is nothing compared to mine’ in all groups. In addition, the word ‘kalar’ which used to carry positive connotation became a word to vilify mostly muslim immigrants of South Asia and Central Asia descent.So, economically, Myanmar became an envy of many others, thanks to its endless natural riches British extracted and managed orderly. On the other side, socially, beneath the surface, divisions and distrust were rampant and waiting to explode and come forth to the surface.British were aware of that and hence they told Independence leader General Aung San, father of today leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, that independence was out of question unless he can persuade ethnic minorities to demand independence from British in one united voice. A tall order it may be, General Aung San succeeded in bringing all groups together; and he and minority leaders signed Panglong agreement in Feb 1947.By a twist of fate, the fragile unity lasted only until his death by assassination in July 1947. Some even went so far as to suggest British orchestrated the assassination as they were alarmed at him pulling off the impossible and decided to finish him and his political career.Regardless of the truth, the country was thrown into disarray. Declining and dying British empire eventually let go of Myanmar. At last, the country gained independence as a democratic union of Myanmar .. .. .. at a price. Without Aung San leading the pack, civil wars broke out, battles were fought over ideologies(Communism) or in name of defense of ethnicity(Kayin rebel armies) or under the pretext of rebelling against religious discrimination(Islam separatists in Northwestern Arakan, precursor to today’s Rohingya rebels). Myanmar, already debilitated by World War II, additionally suffered from these post-independence wars.In reality, the worst is yet to come: from 1948 to 1962, democracy malfunctioned in modern independent Myanmar from day one. Parliamentarians squabbled; too many members of various backgrounds had their own vested interests put ahead of national interest; not reaching a consensus was taken as a strength of diversity. As a result, authority of central government weakened and rebels grew bolder. Once, Kayin insurgents reached as near as Insein, a town just 10 miles away from the prime minister office.In perilous time like that, General Ne Win who fought alongside General Aung San against Japan and British decided enough is enough. As he saw also a power vacuum in wake of barely working central government and rebellions everywhere, he seized power in 1962 and began an era of military dictatorship.[Secretariat Building where General Aung San was assassinated]General Ne Win, Than Shwe and military eraGeneral Ne Win successfully pushed back rebels to outer fringes of the country and he had then an opportunity within his reach to turn himself to a smart considerate dictator, someone like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore or Park Chung Hee of South Korea. Sadly, what followed was anything but the type of leader the country needed at that timeAlmost all historians and political analysts agree Ne Win was a competent commander. He saved the country from the brink of collapse by civil wars. However much success he had in quelling rebellions, his other political moves are so bad that it gained him much notoriety.He was a product of his time, meaning a xenophobe suspicious of the degree of loyalty among descendants of foreigners and immigrants. It is worth noting that he himself was a Burmanized half-Chinese; and he had problems with Indians’ grip of the country’s economy and with unassimilated Chinese whom he suspects to be more loyal to China’s cause and Communism.Predictably, he expelled Indians from Myanmar, incited Sino-Burmese riots and tried to strengthen central authority by ending centuries-long Shan Saopha system. He afterwards instituted what he called ‘Burmese way to socialism’, which some pundits dub as ‘Burmese way to cataclysm’.That was the beginning of economic collapse. Indians’ skill and knowledge of economy were gone with their exodus out of Myanmar. Trade with China dwindled. Under international pressure, he isolated the country from rest of the world, further hurting the economy. Thousands of nationalised private enterprise went on to become less and less productive.In my personal opinion, his social engineering efforts deserve a little credit though. He made students from all parts of the country to attend universities in Yangon and Mandalay(That is how my parents hailing from two opposite ends of the country met at the Yangon university). He was trying to create a homogeneous society as I believe he believed Myanmar can’t afford to have too many groups with non-aligning interests and separate identities. This line of thinking was later adopted by General Than Shwe who seized power in 1992.Yet, western interventions and geo-politics meant the civil wars with ethnic minorities never came to a truce. To keep the enemies at bay, to keep the military’s coffer flowing with money, military government(under both Ne Win and Than Shwe) chose an easy way out: selling off natural resources. What started off as a way to solve state budget’s constraint during wars became an easy way for military government to enrich themselves.Teak logging which were done in sustainable manner under the British were to be seen no more. Selling of whatever resource in Myanmar accelerated under the military rule. One might be tempted to think Myanmar’s resources must be wearing thin by then. Alas, no, Myanmar is extremely rich in resources and from ancient Bagan empire up to now, it is still a resource-based economy.The sprawling resource-selling enterprises enriched(and continues to) many a government official and businessmen bootlicking the officials. Just like in every resource-dependent economy under dictatorship, corruption and bribery became order of the day.Absence of accountability, no audit of the government’s finances meant no one knew where the money goes. Certainly, not to education and infrastructure, the two main pillars of a modern developed economy. Most likely, proceedings from selling natural resources went straight to military’s spendings and officials’ pockets. Taxation system crumbled since military government was earning billions of USD from controlling the resource trade. Its increasing dependence on resources, not on taxes, reduced interrelation between the public and the government. The gov doesn’t care the public as much as the public abhors the government. Every gov departments conducted as if they were in some sort of competition who will be crowned ‘the most corrupted’…You want a business deal? Pay an official. If you are a citizen of China who wants to buy a whole mountain or a gem mining plot, bribe an official and get a citizenship card! Are you a local businessman who wants to get rich quickly? You can get a logging concession by getting close to an official of high rank! Such a mess, right?In the end, military became an only functioning institution in Myanmar. It can fight wars, do business, play politics and dictate education system. Many people who have read Myanmar’s history from ancient times to the present give a name to sum up everything I wrote above: RESOURCE CURSE.Its vast resources robbed Myanmar Kings off a chance to look outside of their dominion, a chance to observe the outside world and adapt accordingly. Resources again led British to conquer Myanmar and exploit its potential without so much as respect for local culture and regards for native’s sentiments. Their rule created fissures, a time bomb, which exploded once Myanmar became independent. Ensuing instability called for military intervention which relied heavily upon income from resource extraction. A taste of easy money opened doors for corruption, bribery, graft and a lasting dictatorship. Foreign countries’ propensity to pressure Myanmar to adopt their forced ‘democratic’ values, their denying Myanmar of a chance to solve its own problems with minimal outside intervention drove the public to the populist camp. Given these circumstances, it will take years till Myanmar becomes developed.I could write more on this.. but the answer is already very long. So I will stop here and add new ones whenever I feel appropiate

This is an interesting question, and the Reuters article that prompted it is an interesting read. An honest but complete answer would have to be really nuanced, larded with qualifiers and caveats, and avoid using the word “empire” anywhere within it. (It also would have to look a fair amount like one of my master’s papers from many years ago, since a lot of the same issues seem like they have to be hashed through time and again.) In the immortal words of former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura in the first Predator movie, “I ain’t got time to bleed.”Instead, let me offer just a few thoughts for readers to consider and perhaps do some independent digging into.The US military is pretty much in a perennial state of “over-extension.” “Doing more with less” has been a mantra since the Berlin Wall fell and Peace Broke Out. Nothing about that condition is new.Since the beginning of World War II, a fair part of each conflict involving American combat action has consisted of burning through leftovers — weapons, rations, uniforms, etc. — before most of the shiny new toys have made it to the theater of operations. Combat is a come-as-you-are activity, and its requirements are becoming increasingly expensive. Front-line aircraft are mostly 1970s and 1980s designs, and a trickle of F-35s isn’t going to do much to change that, their force multiplier capabilities notwithstanding. Old airplanes get tired, so their availability goes down and some have to be pulled from the inventory entirely. The current acquisition process for major weapons systems lags requirements by years, if not decades. The shelf is getting increasingly bare, even as demand increases. Speaking of which…The Nineties marked an unprecedented expansion of US involvement in what used to be called “police actions” (when people didn’t approve of them). Gone were the days of being organized, trained and equipped to fight two simultaneous “major regional conflicts;” that philosophy was eroded by reality. 2MRC gave way to “win-hold-win” (fight one MRC, try to keep from being annihilated in a second MRC until the first one was at a point where resources could be shifted from one theater to another). That’s a pretty telling indicator of a downturn in capability, as was the decision taken literally decades ago to reduce strategic airlift capability from 56 million ton-miles per day to perhaps half that.I retired from a position on the Air Staff in the Pentagon as that decade came to a close, and I’m here to tell you, people were beat up from the endless cycle of deployments, scrambling to meet the next new politically directed tasking, and generally trying to maintain readiness as more and more active duty members voted with their feet. Everybody knew the candle was being burned at both ends. The only solution available at the time was to increase the percentage of mission requirements met by Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Reserve and National Guard/Air National Guard units as opposed to active duty units. Now we’re seeing carrier groups spending longer amounts of time at sea (playing hell with the lives of the volunteers that serve on them and cutting into their refit time between cycles).The 9/11 attacks prompted a certain public groundswell of support that had been mostly lacking since the DESERT STORM era, and it also (temporarily) provided a certain amount of focus on a specific part of the world. However, ramping up to a full-blown combat tempo cost literally billions, if not trillions of dollars (as pointed out by the Reuters essay), and a fair amount of that has been sucked up by “expendables,” i.e., stuff that’s made for a single noisy use. Moreover, in the world of military budgeting, “operations and maintenance” (“3400”) money is spent on what’s being used today; new airplanes and aircraft spares and repair parts have to come from the same major account (“3010”) that used for “war consumables.” When the size of the balloon is fixed, you have to squeeze one part to make another part bigger.Pilot production is abysmally low. There simply isn’t enough training capacity to fill cockpits the way they need to be, and military pilots with thousands of hours in their log books are increasingly more valuable assets for major air carriers to pursue. (Did I mention that all of these pilots are “volunteers”?) Within the last year, the Air Force has had to give up its treasured adherence to having all of its pilots being commissioned officers to have enough bodies to fly MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted aircraft — that one fact alone strikes me as a cultural tsunami that speaks volume as to how dire their rated force numbers are getting.The types of conflicts in which the US is currently engaged are burning through “high-demand/low-density” resources (Google it) at a numbingly accelerating pace. Everybody wants AWACS, combat search and rescue, SEALs, Green Berets, Force Recon, and Air Commandos at their beck and call. These folks take years to train and cost a mint to properly outfit and support… but you still need conventional cavalry squadrons and bunches of 11Bs as well, and they need to be kept trained and ready as well. Those kinds of investments aren’t sexy and can’t be seen on static display at airshows, but they’re must-do activities, and it’s getting harder and harder to get the money for them, headlines suggesting bloated defense budgets notwithstanding.Even before the President made it a tweet-point this past spring, it’s been well known for a very long time that very few countries that seem to want the U.S. to do more, either as a world citizen or for their collective security, kick in proportionate or legitimate percentages of their own gross domestic products for defense purposes. (For example, see this 2016 pre-election article: These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense .) The US subsidizes a lot of costs that should be borne by others. (They in turn get to spend more on social programs for their own citizens and admonish the U.S. for not doing likewise, but that’s kind of a tangent, I suppose.)Finally, something I just heard on the news initially struck me as scarier than most of the other personnel-related observations I’ve made above. The Army has started giving itself some leeway regarding the types of people they’re willing to allow in their ranks. Some of the clickbait topics were pretty incendiary (e.g., Army lifts ban on waivers for recruits with history of some mental health issues), but the fact remains that things like drug addiction used to be an automatic “nope,” and they aren’t any more. A pretty good article suggesting a process change along these lines has at least something of a silver lining (The Army Is Offering Mental-Health Waivers, But Don’t Freak Out Just Yet) eased my mind a little bit, but still the underlying fact is that the pool of willing and qualified volunteers is getting stretched increasingly thin.Based on the above, it’s clear: something’s gotta give. I figure it’s going to be the people in uniform first, closely followed by the increasingly threadbare hardware. By some lights, the people are the most expensive ongoing cost, but the U.S. simply can’t afford to do a wholesale change-out of its clapped-out equipment. (At the same time, the U.S. can’t afford to keep expending million-dollar weapons on soft targets in sand dunes, either.)There are other issues as well, most notably of genuine, informed public support for military action when it is warranted. The use of force used to be accompanied by a formal declaration of war, but how can you observe such niceties when you’re dealing with non-state actors and proxies? That gap between ideals and reality has become a major trade space for punditry to advocate for wars they like and rail against those they don’t. Their yammering becomes desensitizing noise, and the raw facts of what’s done in the nation’s name by a tiny percentage of the larger population are lost on most.As things stand today, the American public is incredibly risk-averse, even as it demands effective military action on missions that may or may not be legitimate uses of military power. They like push-button wars like those waged by the Reapers; they demands heads roll for the deaths of military advisors who may or may not even be able to arm themselves properly, be that due to shortages or stupid rules of engagement. (Or worse, they don’t even care about such deaths, like those of CIA officers who died in Afghanistan a few years back.) They are disconnected from the obligations they should feel to to step up and serve, and don’t because they don’t have to.One solution that would get to at least some of the people issues I’ve sketched out is simple but would be an amazingly hard sell… namely, universal conscription. It probably wouldn’t work, simply because it’s a lot easier to let somebody else do the nation’s business, say, “Thank you for your service,” and go back to the Xbox or to complaining about the micro-aggression of uniformed veterans on college campuses. (It also probably wouldn’t work because an awful lot of voices that legitimately rail about gender discrimination shut up in a hurry when the subject of requiring women as well as men to register for Selective Service comes up. Hypocrites.)Bottom line: I agree with the central premise of the article. The U.S. expects too much of its military, and a good chunk of the rest of the free world does as well. Things simply can’t go on as they have. Major investments — in people and in treasure — or even more disengagement and isolationism than already seems to be suggested seem to be the only ways out of the mess. Given the abhorrents [sic] that would fill the resulting vacuum in the latter case, I hope people start becoming more willing to step up personally and to reach into their wallets.(I love wordplay, especially when it really gets to the core of an issue.)