Your Weekly Rush

Well, Rush thinks that Conservatives are pissed off at President Bush. He brings up the old bugaboo of the Education Bill, passed a long time . . . well why don't I just let Rush tell it.

"Take the president's education bill. It spends more than any on education, yet the administration has seen states "sitting on billions of federal dollars" according to AP. Furthermore, "Two Democrats who helped secure bipartisan support for the law - Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California - accused the administration of false claims and broken promises." So Bush enrages his supporters while trying to buy support from Democrats, and they're still out there calling him a heartless jerk who hates children."

Yep. Well Rush stretches the truth a bit. The truth is that President Bush's budget starved his own program; that is why Seanaters Kennedy and Miller were upset.

On the other hand, Rush had this cheerful news.

"Conservatives are not interested in the Republican Party or a "big tent." Conservatives are interested in the country, the Constitution, limited government, personal liberty, low taxes, a strong military and national security. Conservatives believe that they are the loyal supporters who worked, voted and contributed money for Bush, yet ever since his inauguration they've seen him ignoring them and reaching out to his enemies. They think Bush cares more about pleasing his political foes than his friends. They feel taken for granted."

I hear there's this libertarian party, maybe these dissapointed Conservatives should look at that. Or, even better, maybe they should force President Bush into putting some of their more extreme suggestions into his platform (this is a long shot. Karl Rove knows that the Conservatives are always going to support President Bush, because he's the only game in town, essentially).

Still, it is nice to see Rush encouraging his followers to be discouraged with President Bush.

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Summary

Here you go. Any suggestions on what we can do for the next go around, e-mail me. politicalcombryant@hotmail.com

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - General Wesley Clark

This is from a speech made in South Carolina on November 6, 2003.

"Let me be clear: there has been some real progress in Iraq. Iraqis have a better future with Saddam Hussein out of power. In many areas, life is improving. It is inspiring to see brave Iraqis working with Americans to rebuild their country. But seven months after the fall of Saddam; violence is growing, and the enemy's morale and momentum is increasing with each deadly attack.

Saddam Hussein did pose a national security challenge. There is no dispute about that. He was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. If he didn't still have weapons of mass destruction, he was trying to acquire them. He remained hostile to his neighbors. But it was clear then and it is even clearer today that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the region or the world.

I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan.

The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests. Instead of basing life and death decisions on hard-headed realism, they were guided by wishful thinking. They were convinced that if only we could get rid of Saddam, democracy would bloom in Iraq and across the Middle East."

And here's Clark's strategy in Iraq.

"A new and realistic strategy for Iraq should be guided by the following principles. First, we must end the American monopoly on the occupation and reconstruction. Then we must develop the right force mix to fight and win a guerrilla war. Finally, we must give Iraqis a greater stake in our success.

. . .This new international effort should be launched immediately. The world is waiting for our leadership. They know success is critical for them, too. And we mustn't cast them aside any longer. They should have a seat at the table. But fixing the Administration's missteps won't be easy. It will require diplomacy at the highest levels. And I will call a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan, and the Arab World to launch this new international project.

. . . First off, we want to distribute our resources properly. This requires US forces to run an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency campaign, while Iraqi forces and our allies perform other necessary tasks. When it comes to our force levels, it's possible that some may need to be added initially to create the right mix of capabilities. You cannot measure success by a reduction in forces, and you can't declare failure by an increase in forces. It's better to do the job right so we can succeed and then bring our troops home.

. . .Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a new sovereign government in Iraq right away. There has been a false debate between the French, who recommended turning all government functions over to Iraqis now - and the Bush Administration, which insists on waiting until a constitution is written and elections are held.

The French are wrong: we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they are ready. But the administration is also wrong: we can give the Iraqis a much bigger sense of ownership over their country and move more quickly towards a government that answers to its people."

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Former Governer Howard Dean

From a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, June 25, 2003. Not that any of you are having a hard time remembering Dean's stance on the war.

"Last October, four of the major contenders for the Democratic nomination supported the President's preemptive strike resolution five months before we went to war without, as we now realize, knowing the facts.

I stood up against this administration and even when 70% of the American people supported the war, I believed that the evidence was not there and I refused to change my view. As it turned out, I was right. No Democrat can beat George Bush without the same willingness that John F. Kennedy showed in 1962. A President must be tough, patient, and willing to take a course of action based on evidence, and not ideology.

I question the judgment of those who led us into this conflict this unfinished conflict that has made us, on balance, not more secure, but less. Although we may have won the war, we are failing to win the peace.

I believed then and I believe now that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a just cause. But not every just cause requires that we go to war, especially with inadequate planning and without maximum support."

And from his big foriegn policy speech of December 15, 2003.

"America's interests will be best served by acting with dispatch to work as partners with free Iraqis to help them build a stable, self-governing nation, not by prolonging our term as Iraq's ruler.

To succeed we also need urgently to remove the label "made in America" from the Iraqi transition. We need to make the reconstruction a truly international project, one that integrates NATO, the United Nations, and other members of the international community, and that reduces the burden on America and our troops."

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Senator John Edwards

This is from a Senate Statement on May 20, 2003.

"Last fall, many of us who supported the use of military force in Iraq warned President Bush about this problem. We argued that the United States needed to put the same amount of energy, effort and creativity into planning for what to do after Saddam was gone.

We supported the use of force to ensure that Iraq complied with its commitments to the international community. But we also called on the president to carefully plan for a new Iraq - a prosperous democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The president obviously did not heed our advice. The administration did not make adequate plans for the situation which now threatens the success of our mission in Iraq -- and in some instances, it apparently didn't plan at all. It now tries to explain away its failures as the "untidy" realities of postwar Iraq. Rather than make excuses, the administration must act before it undermines all that we have accomplished."

The Edwards plan for winning the peace in Iraq, released at the same time, is as follows.

"Before the Bush administration "undermines all that we have accomplished," Senator Edwards said the United States should:

Involve our allies, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in establishing a free Iraqi government with legitimacy in the region and around the world.

Create a NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that the Iraqi people live in a place that is safe and secure.

Ensure that the Iraqi people - not some puppet government - shape the nation's future under a government that reflects the nation's diversity.

Help develop a prosperous economy by making clear that Iraq's vast oil reserves will not be exploited by the United States or others."

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Representative Dick Gephardt

These comments are from a speech on July 22, 2003 at the San Francisco Bar Association.

"It's a new world, with manifold new dangers ? from global terror, to the recklessness of rogue dictators, to international crime and drug-running that rips at the very fabric of freedom.

That is why, in the days and weeks after September 11th, I closed ranks and supported President Bush. I make no apologies for supporting the war in Iraq. And I still hope and pray for the president's success in world affairs. In a very real sense, the lives and livelihoods of our people are in his hands."

Gephardts web page also has a section entitled "Ask Chrissy" in which Gephardts Daughter, whose name is, I believe, Magnolia, answers questions.

" Ken, my father was Democratic Leader in the House when America was deciding on whether to go to war with Iraq. In the days leading up to our declaration of war, my dad visited the CIA twice and met with former Clinton intelligence experts on several occasions. My dad says that he became convinced after meeting with these experts and officials, that Saddam Hussein was a formidable threat and that he was positioned to use his weapons of mass destruction. My dad made a tough decision to do what was right to keep the American people safe.

In addition, he strongly encouraged George Bush to go to the United Nations to get their support in this effort. Despite my father's efforts, Mr. Bush did not engage the United Nations. Instead, he insisted that we go into Iraq alone to take on Saddam Hussein. My father will always make decisions on what he believes is right and to keep the American people safe. "

Gephardts other ideas on Iraq, going forward, are difficult to tease out. He does think that whoever becomes President should have Foreign Policy Experience. Which presumably he thinks he has.

He also had this statement, from the speech to the San Francisco bar earlier.

"If I were president, I'd ask NATO to join with us immediately to secure peace and stability in post-war Iraq. And I'd go the U.N. right now and ask for a Security Council mandate, so countries like India and Russia and France and Germany will join us.

According to news reports, some in this administration are pressing right now for the president to go back to the U.N. to finally get a real U.N. mandate, but others believe it would be 'humiliating.' I'll tell you what's humiliating ? putting American lives on the line without the help and support and additional troops we need to do the job right.

Even in the best scenario, it's going to be a long and arduous road to Iraqi democracy ? a phrase that, historically speaking, has been a contradiction in terms. We've got 147,000 Americans there now; we're spending $4 billion a month in Iraq; it's not mere machismo to resist asking allies for help ? it's absolute insanity."

Oh, and I know that Gephardts daughter name is really Chrissy. Just my little joke.

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Senator John F. Kerry

Both quotes are from a speech Mr. Kerry gave on December 16, 2003 at Drake University. Of course, Mr. Kerry spends quite a bit of time slamming into Howard Dean, and commenting on the capture of Saddam Hussien which had just happened at the time.

The first is on his support for the Resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"I believe it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN agreements. I believed then – and I believe now – authorizing force was the only way to get inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to enforce Saddam Hussein’s compliance with the mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last resort war could become the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.

And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the credibility to be elected President."

And the second is on his plan for Iraq now.

"First, go back to the international community and to the United Nations and offer a real partnership in Iraq. We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding process and the development of a new Iraqi Constitution and government. Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority should be sincerely thanked for their service – and replaced by a UN Special Representative in Iraq who will remove the stigma of foreign occupation from our presence there. The United States has ample power and influence to establish a working relationship which guarantees— indeed guides us to—an outcome which meets our goals and security needs.

Second, the UN authorization for international forces in Iraq is finally in place, but to expand participation we have to share responsibility, which the Administration still won’t do. We need to conduct real diplomacy with the goal of really getting boots on the ground.

. . . Third, we need a reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government, for transferring political power and the responsibility for reconstruction to the people of Iraq. That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in that country – not cutting and running in order to claim a false success for the sake of the 2004 election. The timing of events in Iraq should not be keyed to the timetable of the Bush re-election campaign. Genuinely engaging the Iraqi people in shaping new institutions is fundamental to the long term cause of a stable, peaceful, and independent Iraq that contributes to the world instead of threatening it."

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Representative Dennis Kucinich

This is one that really sticks in the craw of Kucinich supporters I've noticed. Their candidate is pretty much pure on this issue (in the sense that he's not changed his position, a distinction he largely shares with Lieberman, although both candidates have pushed their beliefs forward or backwords as politics required).

The first quote is from a speech on Martin Luther King Day, before the war started.

"In sixteen months since America was attacked, no credible evidence has been presented that Iraq perpetrated 9-11, or conspired in 9-11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attack on our country. Nor does Iraq have missile strike capability against the U.S., usable weapons of mass destruction nor the intention to use them against us.

It is more than strange that while no credible connection has been made between Iraq and 9-11, that the Administration blocked efforts at an early official inquiry into 9-11, while beating the drums to attack Iraq.

Why is the Administration targeting Iraq? Oil. America has become increasingly reliant on imported oil. The future of an oil-dominated economy rests in the Gulf region. Instead of a new energy policy, we get a new war of "good" acting against "evil".

To be sure, the dictator Saddam Hussein is an easy target, for murder of his own people. He was an easy target, too, years ago when supported by the United States, notwithstanding his cruelty.

When war is already in the hearts of those who lead this nation, because our leaders aspire to dominate oil markets, or expand arms trade or desire world empire, or to distract from failures domestically, what are the American people to do? Do we just sit and watch while the United States moves next to declare war against North Korea, or Iran?"

And this quote is from a web document on what should be done in Iraq now.

"The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can?t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission."

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Senator Joe Lieberman

This is from Joe Lieberman's website, a section covering his record on Iraq

"Joe Lieberman has been the Senate's leading voice for removing Saddam from power. Over the years, he has fought to empower the Iraqi opposition to oust Saddam Hussein so that American military force might not become necessary. In 1998, he and Senator John McCain cosponsored the Iraqi Liberation Act, which -- when signed by President Clinton -- made a change of regime in Baghdad official United States policy and provided assistance to forces within Iraq seeking to depose Saddam's brutal dictatorship.

Crafting Bipartisan Resolution Authorizing Force. In 2002, Joe Lieberman worked with the Democratic leadership to pass the bipartisan resolution giving the President the authority as Commander-in-Chief to use military force, if and when diplomacy failed, to disarm Saddam. Through his work, he helped craft a resolution that led President Bush to go through the UN for support in this effort."

And from a speech from September 10, 2003 to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"We've made some progress--creating a Department of Homeland Security; overthrowing tyrannical regimes with links to terror in Afghanistan and Iraq; and killing or rounding up members of Al Qaida.

But nearly every step forward has been matched by a stumble, a setback, a stalemate. Both abroad and at home, rather than set bold goals and build durable coalitions to reach those goals, the Bush Administration has hoarded authority, bungled diplomacy, pushed allies to the margins, and divided rather than multiplied the strength we need to win the war on terror."

Candidate Review - The War in Iraq - Former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun

Well, it's time for another trip round the horn. This week I thought we'd take on Iraq, as it is one of the key issues the candidates are using to define themselves and their opponents.

This is from remarks made on CNNs Crossfire, September 8, 2003.

"You should know, I opposed this war. I thought that the Congress missed - abdicated its Article 1, Section 3 -- Section 8 authority under the Constitution by giving a president who had not gotten the popular vote of the American people unilateral authority to go in with a preemptive war in Iraq. I didn't think it had anything to do with the war on terrorism. I've called it a misadventure. So we shouldn't be there, in my opinion. But having been - now that we're there, we've got young men and women in the field. We cannot abandon them. We have to give them the support they need to get the job finished. Americans do not cut and run."

Ann Coulter; How I Hate Her

Well, maybe, hate is too strong a word.

Maybe.

No it isn't.

Check out this quotation from her latest article. "The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God."

Yep. You might want to read that again to see if you read it correctly.

Well, I go to church every week (except this last week when a combination of illness and stupidity kept me from attending), and I don't plan to be president (which is a good thing, since I really really don't have the hair for it).

And I don't fake a belief in God.

Religion and Politics; Two Great Tastes that don't Go Together

Apparently.

According to Cal Thomas at any rate, who is the last person I would expect to suggest this. But there it is. Pat Robertson's recent communique from God on Presidents Bush's sure-fire reelection has pushed him to make this statement.

"The idea that God would reach down and prophesy an election outcome to one man, who then says President Bush could even do wrong and God would keep him in office, offers joke material to Leno and Letterman and brings the Christian Gospel into further disrepute before unbelievers. It could also put a lot of pundits out of work!

. . .Could we please return to the issues and put everyone back in the camp with which he is most familiar? Otherwise, politicians and religious leaders are asking for jokes like the one from Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said, "Maybe Pat (Robertson) got a message from (Bush political advisor) Karl Rove and thought it was from God."

Well, for once I agree with Cal Thomas, although I really have a hard time understanding how Robertson's prophecies could put Pundits out of work.

Arianna Huffington is Back!

Yep. And she's taken on the current belief that Dean is unelectable with her usual verve.

". . . the folks besmirching the Good Doctor's Election Day viability are the very people who have driven the Democratic Party into irrelevance. Who spearheaded the party's resounding 2002 midterm defeats. Who kinda, sorta, but not really disagreed with President Bush as he led us down the path of preemptive war with Iraq, irresponsible tax cuts, and an unprecedented deficit.

Dean is electable precisely because he's making a decisive break with the spinelessness and pussyfooting that have become the hallmark of the Democratic Party."

She goes on to compare Doctor Dean to Bobby Kennedy who ran a similar campaign (and faced similar charges) back in 1968, before the assassin's bullet took his life.

It's good to have her back.

On a related note, It's time to nominate websites for the Bloggies. Those of you who are into that kind of thing might want to gander over and, oh, I don't know, nominate some weblog for an award.

Bush in 30 Seconds

Well, Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator (and for those who don't know why I call him that, click here), has a lot of fun mocking the finalists in the Bush in 30 Seconds contest.

Take this laughter filled passage. "Charlie Fisher's "Child's Pay" depicts young children as janitors, manual laborers, sanitation workers and grocery clerks. "Guess who's going to pay off president Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" the graphic asks. Apparently, street urchins breaking child labor laws." Yep, that's right Ben, think literally. Who do you think is going to end up paying off our deficit? Well, assuming we eventually elect someone with the smarts to work on the project, won't it end up being taxpayers, including our children?

Another ad, my personal favorite, "What are we teaching our Children?" shows children mimicking George W. Bush. Of course Ben has the right answer to concerns about what our children are learning about government. "Here's a solution liberals can handle: abort the children. End of problem." You see, that makes sense because theirs nothing Liberals love more than killing children. Unless of course that's crap (which, for those of you playing along at home, it is).

Ben Shapiro accuses two ads ("Human Cost of War" and "Bring 'em on") of taking quotes out of context. I'm afraid, Ben, if you put them back in context it becomes worse.

He also mentions "Bush's Repair Shop." "President Bush and Vice President Cheney are portrayed as mechanics, destroying a car they are charged with fixing. The car is beaten to smithereens, symbolizing America's destruction at the hands of this diabolical duo. At least when Republicans destroy a car, they don't do it by going off a bridge and leaving a woman in the back seat." Yep. Because the Democratic Party should be force to wear Chappaquiddick around their necks like an albatross. Even though that terrible accident happened over a year before I was born I am as guilty as as if I had been there, merely for being a liberal. Or so young Ben would like me to believe. But it doesn't seem very plausible to me.

Anyway for those who want to view the videos, or who want smaller videos of the ones I linked to above, here's the link.

Your Weekly Rush and a whole lot more

Well, I don't know if you've heard about the big MoveOn.Org controversy, but let's lay it out for you.

MoveOn.Org is a liberal organization sponsored a contest entitled "Bush in 30 Seconds" in which you submitted ads explaining what President Bush is all about. Being a liberal website, they were of course negative ads (you can see the finalists here). They received over 1,000 ads and they posted most of them on their website, including two which incorporated Nazi Imagery. The MoveOn organization did not create or commission those ads, nor are there any plans to try to get them on the air.

Republicans are offended by the ads (and, I must admit, not without reason) but their reaction has been a little over the top and has, as you might expect distorted the issue a bit. Take Rush Limbaugh for example. Please.

"This group has "apologized" - but only by way of blaming the Republicans! The group claims that by expressing outrage, the GOP wrongly implied that MoveOn.org was attached to the ads.

Are they kidding? They posted these ads, and Soros has been out there saying Bush statements like "you're either with us or your with the terrorists" reminded him of the Nazi slogans of his youth."

No they are not kidding, Rush. They didn't produce or cause to be produced the two offending ads. I don't know what's hard to understand about that. Also they took the ads down and apologized; which of course gets them no credit whatsoever.

Rush also uses his magnificent psychic abilities to tell us what's really going on at MoveOn.Org. "I'll tell you what they're really ashamed of. They're ashamed that it didn't work. They're ashamed that everybody got on their case. They really thought this would score points. They really thought those two ads would put them on the map in a positive way."

Does Rush offer any proof? No, because none is needed. To Rush and his fans just being a democrat sets you apart as a purely evil person, to whom the most base and hateful motivations can be assumed. Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof.

Joan Walsh, editor of Salon News, and presumably a liberal, had this to say on the subject. "And so MoveOn moves on. Its enemies won't, of course. That's why it's important that the group admitted it stumbled, a little, by ducking the admittedly tough task of vetting the ads for content before posting them to the site, and that it says it learned from the mistake. Of course, the RNC didn't apologize when Republicans ran ads that turned disabled veteran Sen. Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden, or Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle into Saddam Hussein. RNC chair Ed Gillespie hasn't yet demanded an apology from columnist Ralph Peters for his Monday New York Post Op-Ed comparing Howard Dean to Hitler. And he never will. Republicans smear without apology. And sadly, they mostly get away with it. "

But don't worry, there's more to this story. Part two, in which we look at the finalists in the competition and check in with Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator

Walter E. Williams is right again

Except he's admitting, in this weeks article, an error in last weeks article. One that I missed in my review of it. Apparently he recounted an urban legend about a guy who sued his Winnebago manufacturer because he got up and brewed some coffee while driving, and nobody ever told him not to.

William's defense is that "Everybody's doing it." No wait, that's not right. Actually his defense is that there is a website dedicated to presenting the idea that American Juries can't be trusted to come up with good verdicts so we need tort reform. And more to the point, when a 79 year old grandmother spills coffee so hot that she receives third degree burns (running up a hospital bill of over $10,000) on herself, she should just take responsibility for her actions and refuse even the $800.00 McDonalds originally offered her. That's what a real American would do.

Instead, as Williams reports, that Grandmother sued McDonalds and was awarded $3 Million. Of course, Williams neglects to mention she never received the $3 Million, she received a much lower figure. Full story here. Thanks to This Modern World.

Of course this is part of an ongoing effort by some Conservatives to make consumers and employees responsible for corporate negligence. I hope they don't get away with it.

Brittney Spears

I haven't checked in with Brittney Spears in quite a while. And by quite a while I mean never. But since she got her quicky marriage and her quicky annulment, it occurs to me that I may not be taking her seriously. After all look at this quote from Ms. Spears.

"I’m famous, but I’m not famous like freaking Brad Pitt or Jennifer Aniston. But in my weird little head, I just think we’re all here to inspire each other. We’re all equal. We just bounce off each other and show the world what we can do."

In my wierd little head, I think we are all here to increase the hits at my website. Oh, and apparently we are suppose to bounce off each other metaphorically not literally.

Helping out Bruce Bartlett

Bruce Bartlett takes the daunting task of explaining unemployment figures today, and, with such a large subject, it's not surprising that he makes a few minor errors in his explanation.

For example, take this passage. "The first, called the household survey, is based on telephone interviews with about 60,000 households per month. This survey is used to calculate the official unemployment rate, which consists of people not working but looking for work as a share of the labor force (those working plus those looking for work). Those not looking for work, such as retirees and stay-at-home mothers, therefore, are not counted as unemployed."

Did you spot the minor mistake Bartlett made? He implied that those not looking for work were only those with benign reasons such as housewives or retirees. But the truth is that there are many who are so discouraged by the job market that they are no longer looking for work. Such people are also not counted in the jobless amount.

Bartlett also seems uninterested in underemployment, such as when a skilled factory worker winds up as a cashier at Wal-mart. Certainly it is better to be working than not working, but you have to take into account the loss of salary and benefits such a move encompasses.

A Taste of the Future

Cal Thomas rides, er, writes again. After berating the Bush administration for even considering charity towards Iran (which lost 30,000 people, he reveals an outline for the future.

"What might hasten "regime change" in Iran and elsewhere in the region is a proposal contained in a "manual for victory" written by Richard Perle, a Defense Department strategist and an architect in the war on terrorism, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. Part of a new book, "An End to Evil: Strategies for Victory in the War on Terror," the document calls for regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a preemptive strike on its nuclear sites. The manifesto also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The United States has two options. It can fail to follow through on its initial blow in Iraq, thus empowering and encouraging America's enemies everywhere, or it can deal a knockout blow to terrorism by finishing the job."

So that's pretty plain isn't it? Reelecting President Bush should, in Cal Thomas's mind, lead to at least two more gulf war style conflicts, and possibly a third against North Korea. Because this will lead to victory over terrorism. So if you want a lot more war, vote for President Bush.

Spymaster John le Carré speaks

Spymaster in that he has written a lot of really cool spy books, including Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, and his new one about being a spy today. Anyway he has some comments on the intelligence community during the build up to Gulf War II, in an interview at Salon.

"The thing about spying is that it's simple. It sees itself as a pure science, exactly as very good journalistic reporting is. As with journalism, there are two absolutely sacred areas. One is the sanctity of sources and the other is the objective truth. What we saw here, in the preparation of that disastrous dossier that so embarrassed Colin Powell in the United Nations, was the attempted corruption, if you like, of pure intelligence and, at a certain level, the politicization of the intelligence arm. When you do that as a politician you actually deprive yourself of true objectivity. You say, "I know there are weapons of mass destruction out there, so go and damn well find them!" That's no way to give a brief. You've got to say, "Come to me and tell me what you've found.

. . . In order to carry out their campaigns, they have to reduce the world to black and white. They have to arrogate to themselves the right to determine what is a bad state and what is a good state. They also arrogate to themselves not just the right to take preemptive action, but to take preventative action. There's a difference in international law. The effect is that the superpower can say, "We don't like the look of that country. It has bad intentions, and we will attack it." It doesn't have to say that the country is threatening us.

The attack on Iraq was planned, we now know, about three or four years before it took place. It was 9/11 that legitimized it. Through an extraordinary trick of public persuasion in which they were greatly assisted by the corporate media, the neoconservative ideologues persuaded the U.S. to a great extent -- one's told seven out of 10 people -- that somehow Saddam was mixed up in the destruction of the twin towers and the attack on the Pentagon. He wasn't. They admit they have no evidence of this. Anyone who's taken even one bus ride through the Middle East would surely know that between the secular Baathists of Iraq and the infuriated fundamentalists that follow Osama bin Laden there is no conceivable bond possible. The religious extremists loathed Saddam because Saddam and the Baath Party were secular and anti-clerical."

The Democratic Underground vs. The Free Republic

The Democratic Undergound, a website I visit frequently and post at often, is in the news a lot these days. Rush Limbaugh and others have held it up as an example of what liberalism is all about in order to mock it. Nothing new there. But if Mr. Limbaugh is going to hold up every post at DU as reflective of liberalism (and, I note, he doesn't seem interested in quoting the many moderate liberals who post there), is it fair to hold up Free Republic and other conservative bulletin boards as examples of conservatism?

Mr. South Knox Bubba who runs a blog called South Knox Bubba, thinks this is a fine idea, and created a list of posts from Free Republic. I have to say this is a pretty good idea, if only to illustrate the folly of picking out random internet posters as indicitive of a whole movement.

Some selections, although I advise reading the whole list.

"- During the first four years of his presidency, and earlier while he was Governor of Arkansas, clinton regularly had inconvenient people rubbed out. The clinton body count was probably over a hundred."

"- The power-hungry prefer a nation of cripples - they're easier to rule. If you're not crippled to begin with, the State will be glad to break your legs."

"- For the die hard and mentally diseased left wing maggots, I hold zero hope that they will ever wake up. They hate America and the rest of us as much as the al Qaeda thugs/terrorists. Many liberals and liberal organizations are funded by the Islamofascists. They are more closely linked to the Islamofascists than they are to the America we know and love."

"And whenever a national socialist (liberal democrat) says, "Are you questioning my patriotism?", the correct answer is, "No, because you are a traitor and a member of the party of treason, nothing less".

"Finally, after years of suspicion and accusations, we not only found the smoking gun, we found the bullets, the target, the secret plans, and the conspirators plotting to politically assassinate a President who is guilty of protecting out nation from terrorists. Unmasked and caught red-handed, the modern Democrat is a traitor. They should be treated no differently than the Rosenbergs; tried in a court of law, convicted, and suffer the harshest punishment. Death by firing squad, preferably. On TV, if possible."

How common these views are among the Conservative movement is left as an exercise for the reader.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention where I got this from; from Tom Tomorrow over there at This Modern World.

To Sir, With Love

Last Friday and Saturday we reviewed the Democratic Candidates plans for Higher Education. A few of them, particularly Representative Dick Gephardt have proposed a program where some get their education payed for in return for teaching a few years after college. I passed along the proposal to a friend of mine, Conrad, who is an education major, and this was his response.

"Although I think that Teacher Corps sounds like an excellent idea and I would personally support such an initiative, I think that it is yet another band-aid fix that is supposed to help a problem (teacher shortage) that is really only a superficial symptom of the cancer that festers underneath the surface of American education.

There are several factors contributing to the rotten core of American education, and most of them are firmly entrenched in the system as legacies from the country's entire educational history.

One: Teaching is "women's work." As progressive as we like to pretend we are, and as much as we call teachers our heroes and bandy about how noble the profession is, in the end, like so much of what we hear /say / think / believe, it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Historically, in the American collective consciousness "teacher" is a job for one of two kinds of people: first, the old maid, a matron too ugly or with her head too filled with book-learning to ever find a decent husband. She lives alone or with her parents and she always will, so she doesn't need a large income, just enough to get by. Second (and this is sadly the more progressive of the two), the housewife who takes a job outside the home but one where she only has to work when the kids are in school themselves. Her income is only a supplement to her husband's, so she also doesn't really need a large salary. Consequently, men avoid teaching like the plague (especially grade school) and women with a lot of potential would rather prove themselves in the competitive world (business, technology, all of those high-paying jobs that used to be and all too often still are reserved for men). Thus in many cases the stereotype becomes the reality.

Two: Ironically, probably as a result of increasing post-WW2 opportunities for higher education coupled with serious degree inflation, Americans DO NOT value education. Again, we say we do, but it too is all sound and fury. What we value is the degree or the diploma. In our society we set a great deal of store by certificates, certifications, diplomas, and degrees as a way to move up in the world both concretely (increased job opportunities, higher pay) and in the slightly more abstract (prestige). What we do not set much store by at all is the education itself. In American society, learning is merely a means to an end. Look at the commercials that exhort kids to stay in school. "Stay in school so you can get a good job." "Stay in school to get somewhere in life." They never say "stay in school so you can become more wise" or "stay in school so that you can be smarter." That attitude then is reflected in curriculum. Classes we take in school are something to be endured, not somewhere to learn. Nonprofit educational organizations decry the American ignorance toward history and geography, and foreign countries mock us for our general inability to speak anything but our native language. Hey, almost every high school requires social studies and foreign language classes for graduation. Everyone who graduates high school (and these days that's most everyone) had to take and pass those classes, yet mysteriously learned nothing. This problem persists all through college/university, at least on the undergraduate level. I imagine and hope (probably idealistically and naively) that it sort of goes away after that, but I don't really know from experience.

Three: teaching means working for the government, which mostly means not making very much money. In the military, this is to a degree offset by the many benefits offered (BAH/Housing, base living, Tricare, money for education, etc.). In most other government work, it is not. I name this point more for completeness's sake to round out my argument, but I don't know how much can actually be done about it.

The result of these is that there are very few quality candidates for teaching careers who want to pursue them, especially when compared (again) to the worlds of business and technology. Preservice teachers are absolutely not the best and brightest of their generation because 1. teaching is seen as a job for people who are not really ambitious, don't have a lot of potential, and don't really need a lot of money, 2. education is generally not seen as important in and of itself but as a necessary evil, a means to an end, and 3., the bottom line, education in most cases pays incredibly low wages and doesn't have enough benefits to counterbalance them. Look at any college or university, and if you compare averages I would make a high wager that the students in the college of education have the lowest test scores, the lowest GPA (not counting cake-walk COE courses), and the lowest standards of academic excellence.

What rising star with a lot of talent, a lot of ambition, and a lot of potential, a lot of opportunities is going to pick teaching, a career that is not respected and gets paid diddly-squat? Only the rare student like me who is somehow other-motivated, and we're really few and far between.

Also, the system is self-perpetuating. Future teachers see their own education as merely a means to an end, a set of hoops they have to jump through to get into their career and thus they come out of college with nearly no content area knowledge and astoundingly little pedagogical skills/understanding. They don't know what to teach and they wouldn't know how to teach it even if they did.

There's this unspoken idea pervasive among preservice teachers that what really matters is caring about children and wanting to help mold and shape them into citizens of tomorrow. I say that without content and pedagogial knowledge, caring only qualifies you to be a child care provider, no matter what sort of degree you have.

Everyone knows about this problem with low-quality teachers and teaching, so what do we do? We mandate more coursework, recertification and such, which doesn't help any more than the coursework did the first time around. Or we start holding teachers "accountable," checking to make sure their performance meets some sort of state-mandated standard. I predict that the latter approach, which is an increasingly popular political stance towards education, will only make the problem worse. Cracking down on current teachers itself won't increase the quality of teachers. All it will do is create one more deterrent to becoming a teacher in the first place. Not only will it (as it is currently) require a lot of education and pay next to nothing while not being respected really at all, but on top of that it will be tightly regulated
with the likelihood of being fired if your performance (or worse, the performance of your students) ever dips sub-par. Who the heck wants that kind of job? I'd start reconsidering.

Teacher Corps would in all probability just make college a little easier for the people who already are going to be teachers. While I support this (but then again I support a European-style educational system where college is free for everyone but only really necessary for a few), I do not think it will on the whole improve America's teachers and/or teaching, and while it may recruit some new teachers, I seriously doubt it will recruit very many of the high-quality applicants that we need to start seeing if education in our country is ever going to change."

Anyway well worth thinking about.

Candidate Review Higher Eduation - Sum Up

Yep, in summing up. Higher Education Good, Bush Tax Cuts excessive.

Heres the sum up page.

New Quote

And a new Quotes Page.