Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Because in the end he's running for President because he feels he ought to be President. That's his message to George W Bush: "The Senator needs you to move." And even then everyone else says it better.

Ouch! That's painful! :-p Posted by Barbara Skolaut at July 31, 2004 08:49 PM

John Kerry actually inspired me this week to do something I have never done before.

I gave money to a political campaign.

$75 to President Bush in fact.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 31, 2004 08:58 PM

Kerry can't run on his record and he can't win on his charisma so tells everyone what they want to hear and has everyone else fight his battles. Just remember, if all thing between Bush and Kerry were equal, would you really want Kerry's wife as First Lady?

Posted by Bill Maron at July 31, 2004 10:30 PM

>>"... he's running for President because he feels he ought to be President."

So, how is that different than the current incumbent? Or anyone else who's campaigned for the office? Big egos are par for the course.

I'm not prepared to reward an ineffectual president who wraps himself in fundamentalism and the flag simply because we were attacked during his watch. Americans rallied around the Presidency, not the President, after 911.

Posted by billg at August 1, 2004 06:32 AM

I'm not prepared to reward an ineffectual president...

Posted by McGehee at August 1, 2004 07:57 AM

(Dang comment engine lost most of what I had to say!)

So, Bilge, you'd rather reward an ineffectual Senator who wraps himself in the flag because of a four-month military tour as if it happened yesterday (and 9/11 not at all), and sums up his entire 61-year life including 19 years in the Senate where the only thing he ever accomplished was marrying a rich widow? You'd rather reward this dilletante Kerry for the heroic achievement of not being George W. Bush?

Is that about right?

Posted by McGehee at August 1, 2004 08:00 AM

So, how is that different than the current incumbent?

Because Kerry's felt that way ever since he was a kid, and he has no discernable principles. He's one of those people who wants to be president so he can be something, not because he wants to do something. It's just one more punch on his resume. He's like the current president's father in that regard.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2004 08:27 AM

I haven't discerned any special principles motivating the current incumbent other than a desire to be president. That desire is the one thing all candidates have incommon. It'd be great if someone was motivated by a real principles and a real desire to change things, but that kind of candidate would scare the country to death.

Meanwhile, we have this guy jumping about, mouthing the usual Republican code words to appeal to their bland and pale base, while he wraps himself in a false flag and talks arrogantly about how he's doing God's work. God doesn't need George Bush to get something done. If I want some fundamentalist who believes he's acting for God I'll move somewhere east of Amman and find me a mullah.

Besides, Kerry's primary qualification is that he isn't a Republican.

Posted by billg at August 1, 2004 11:28 AM

I haven't discerned any special principles motivating the current incumbent other than a desire to be president.

Then you've been paying no attention.

Kerry's primary qualification is that he isn't a Republican.

I think that says it all. There's little reason now to pay attention to anything else you say. No one who can make a statement like that can have given any serious thought to policy issues.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 1, 2004 11:34 AM

What's the story on non-US citizens contributing to the Bush campaign? - is it legal?

I'm from the UK and am thinking in the same vein as Mike...

Posted by Tony at August 1, 2004 02:51 PM

Tony - it's illegal.

But that never stopped the Democrats....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at August 1, 2004 03:12 PM

Thanks for the info. Barbara - I'll just have to show my appreciation in other ways (yet to be decided, but will end up pissing off leftist loons over here in Blighty...)

Posted by Tony at August 1, 2004 03:16 PM

Soros is not an American and has given big to 527s supporting Kerry, are there effective anti Kerry 527s that people can recommend?

Thanks

Bill

Posted by BillB at August 1, 2004 03:59 PM

Rand, I've been paying attention to Bush. He was on his way to do-nothing failure until 911. The fact that the nation rallied after 911 has nothing to with Bush or his policies, and everything to do with our respect for the office he temporarily hold.

I've been ashamed to vote Republican ever since Nixon adopted George Wallace's racist strategy and ran with his "Southern Strategy". The Republican Party has been using racial code words and innuendo ever since to attract votes in the white suburbs. Even Bush's so-called "Christian" base got its start in whites-only private segregation academies established by white parents who didn't want their schools integrated.

Racism remains the countries biggest social problem, and the Republican Party remains racism's single most powerful friend.

Posted by billg at August 1, 2004 05:23 PM

billg - you're fuller than a Christmas goose.

Never mind that Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act (many Dems were vehemently against it). Let's look at now.

Which party believes people can be successful, and which party thinks minorities (particularly blacks) need extra help from the government because they can't make it on their own.

Which party wants inner city (black, for the most part) children to have a choice of going to a decent school instead of rotting in the incompetent public schools, and which party wants to protect the teachers' unions at all costs and to hell with the children?

For that matter, what is the party of demagogues like Jackson and Sharpton who have spent years telling young black men they have no hope and no future? (Hint: It ain't Republican.)

I agree that racism is a problem in America, even today. And if the Democrats would quit being such racists, maybe it would be less of a problem.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at August 1, 2004 05:37 PM

BillB,

George Soros is a naturalized American citizen.

McGehee,

Yikes, the tribal warfare has started. Just as Rand can easily dismiss Billg for his dismissal on grounds of Republicanism, it's quite easy to dismiss your criticism as a simply regurgitation of talking points and leads me to suspect that you'd vote for the devil, as long as he was a Republican.

While there certainly are grounds upon which to criticize Senator Kerry, a comparison against President Bush's accomplishments is treading into territory rife with grounds for rebuttal. As a young man, Kerry show's more fortitude than President Bush. You may disagree with Kerry's anti-Vietnam stance and the medals controversy, but what was President Bush doing at this point in his life. I couldn't find any other summary comparison other than this one from Mother Jones, but I don't see any obvious errors. They completely avoid the Bush AWOL charge, etc.

How does Kerry's public life as a prosecutor, Lietenant Governor and Senator compares to President Bush's accomplishments during the same time period (1977 +)? Like Kerry, President Bush had a failed run for Congress. He was elected twice to public office before winning the Presidency. I'm not quite sure what President Bush did to earn his vaunted reputation that led to his success in politics. It sure couldn't have been his 1.8% $600,000 stake in the Rangers, or his Harken and Arbusto business acumen. How George Bush ever won (Ed. - Record amounts of money) the primaries against Senator McCain, a true conservative, fiscal hawk, and war hero, amazes me to this day, so I suppose his political reputation isn't completely unearned.

If it comes down to comparing the resumes of the two candidates and trying to discern what their pasts say about their present characters then President Bush has little protective fire on this issue.

The talking points often refer to Senator Kerry's voting against defense systems and cutting funding to intelligence. These accusations are supposed to reflect on the true voting record of Senator Kerry, but the accusations are severely spun to entrap the gullible tribal warriors.

Then there's your claim that Kerry has accomplished nothing in his years in the Senate. Here is the primary source and here is a sample of the raw data. Or go here for the Fast Response Team rebuttal:

58 bills and resolutions John Kerry has sponsored over the years have passed the U.S. Senate. Countless others have been improved because of his work, including the Clean Air Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program and the COPS program.
John Kerry has taken on the special interests and won. He fought against Newt Gingrich's anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform. He has fought to raise the minimum wage. He has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies. And John Kerry played an important role in the effort to reach a settlement with the tobacco companies that ended marketing to children and teenagers.

The number of bills that bear your name is a poor measure of legislative accomplishment. For example, Ted Kennedy, who most would acknowledge as the most accomplished Democratic Senator in a generation, has had just 9 bills signed into law in 10 years. Of the more than 400 bills Kennedy sponsored in 108th, 105th and 104th Congresses none were signed into law. And Bill Frist, the Republican Majority Leader, has sponsored 88 bills in the 108th Congress and zero have become law. In the 107th Congress, Frist sponsored 52 bills and 1 became law. It was a bill to authorize and urge the President to promote democracy in Zimbabwe.

Now you may disagree with the man's politics and his voting record but that's entirely different from slinging the line that he's ineffective. The Senate Majority Leader has a batting average of 1 Bill becoming Law for 140 attempts in 2 sittings of Congress.

Why shortchange the man on his Vietnam incountry experience? Navy rules specified that any man wounded 3 times was eligble for stateside transfer. Kerry was wounded 3 times. How many men, heros and men's men included, wouldn't take the opportunity that Navy regs allowed?

If you're inclined to argue the election on political platforms then I think your case can be persuasive on the conservative merits you put forth on behalf of the Republicans, but to invoke references to the character of the two candidates surely leads you into a no-win position for you're attempting to defend the indefensible; Kerry's character stands up quite robustly to President Bush's and that's without invoking the Moore hokum. Kerry steadily earned the public's vote over the course of holding different public offices compared to President Bush's foray into public life that was backed by the biggest war chest in Texas history.

Posted by TangoMan at August 1, 2004 06:14 PM

Hmmm. Takes office on January 20, 2001. September 11, 2001.

Carry the two, hmm, add, uh, I make that to be a bit less than nine months in office.

"He was well on his way to do nothing failure until 911."

You could tell that after nine months? Wow.

T-man:

I take it this is your latest shtick: To call anyone supporting Dubya one engaged in "tribal warfare"? Is that in contrast to the good transnationalism of the Kerry truth squad? Just wondering.

Didn't you say over at Steve Verdon's that you're a conservative? Or am I misremembering?

Posted by Dean at August 1, 2004 07:12 PM

Dean,

To call anyone supporting Dubya one engaged in "tribal warfare"?

I'd rather see a case made on its merits rather than because the guy you're rooting for is on your team, and only because he's on your team. That type of tribalism, or party politics, both Republican and Democratic, bothers me. Making a case for your position can lead to engaging debate. Spewing stuff like "where the only thing he ever accomplished was marrying a rich widow" leads me to conclude that he's rooting for President Bush because of party affiliation and not because of the character of the man, his political ideology, or his political decisions that deviate from conservative ideology.

Did I write above that I was a Democrat? No, I simply critiqued an ad hominem attack. Didn't I write that there are grounds to criticize Senator Kerry? Why, yes I did. I'd much rather have read comments focused on those criticisms rather than regurgitated Matthew Dowd Talking Points. Didn't I write that Senator McCain was to be admired? Why, yes I did. In fact for those inclined to vote on reputations, McCain would have been a better candidate to run against Kerry and his conservative credentials stand up to better scrutiny than those of a President who's lost his veto pen.

Do you have a substantive criticism of my comment or do you prefer to engage in ad hominem rebuttals on this blog as well?

Posted by TangoMan at August 1, 2004 07:55 PM

If you would care to show how any of the above is "ad hominem," I'm all ears.

Meanwhile, what Senator McCain has to do with the current campaign (since, last I checked, he's not running on either the Republican or GOP ticket) is beyond me. But an excellent red herring! How would George McGovern do against Dubya, I wonder?

Finally, your citation regarding Kerry is, as w/ McCain, at best a partial sequitur. As others have noted, Kerry voted against weapons system in 1984, not just 1994. Lest others have forgotten, this was in the MIDDLE of the Cold War, not at the end, as Dick Cheney's comments were (as cited by Fred Kaplan in the Slate piece).

To suggest, therefore, that calling for reduced defense spending at the end of the Cold War is equivalent to calling for no modernization in the middle of that same war is simply ludicrous at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. (Is that ad hominem? Or a simple statement of fact?)

John Kerry opposed defense modernization efforts when the US military was using World War II-era ships (the last of the FRAM series destroyers were still on the books), 1950s-era designed tanks (the M-60 series) and 1960s-era designed aircraft (F-4s were still the mainstay of many units). Had his efforts succeeded, few of the weapons that we fought the Gulf War with (M-1s, F-15s, Tomahawk cruise missiles) would have been available.

If you'd care to spin all of that as ad hominem, feel free. If you'd care to spin that as somehow conforming to conservative politics and policies (perhaps because he undoubtedly claimed that Ronald Reagan's budget deficits were worse than fighting the USSR in the Cold War), feel free. And if that makes me tribal, well, c'est la vie.

Posted by Dean at August 1, 2004 09:16 PM

Dean,

As others have noted, Kerry voted against weapons system in 1984, not just 1994.

What others? Also, Kerry was a candidate in 1984.

As a Senate candidate in 1984, Kerry called for reductions in more than 18 defense systems, including the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, but as a senator, he's supported $8.5 billion for the tank.

This was actually one of your most substantive comments and it actually had specifics that could be addressed.

I'm not about to defend Kerry's dovishness in the past and I think he's fair game for criticism on that front, but in my personal calculus I'll try to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of the criticism and also account for the sea-change that occured post 9/11. To allow President Bush to react to the changed world and renege on his promise of no nationbuilding missions but hold Kerry's feet to the fire on votes from 20 years ago is an unbalanced method of judgement. Also, if I'm called to judge Kerry on events of 20 years ago then I'll do the same for President Bush. If the President is allowed to have grown in his world outlook, personal morality, and political viewpoint then I'll grant Senator Kerry the same allowance.

As I've already stated, Kerry's record is fair game, but it would help your case if you could take a moment and provide a link to support your assertion, if only to avoid a rebuttal like I've provided on your 1984 charge.

Posted by TangoMan at August 1, 2004 11:25 PM

Dean,

You made a specific charge against Kerry and I was curious about its veracity, so a quick Google reveals that you evidently drink too deeply from the fountain of the Republican Spin Machine.

"In September 1995, Kerry voted against a $265 billion bill that contained $564 million for 12 more F/A-18 fighter jets than the Clinton administration had asked for. The House version of the bill didn't include any money for the jets."

President Clinton didn't request the funding and Congress didn't include provision for it, but Senator Kerry must have done it in single-handedly, right?

1960s-era designed aircraft (F-4s were still the mainstay of many units).

The F-4 had a design service life of 33 years, retiring in 1996 and finished it's production run in 1979, 5 years before Senator Kerry was first elected to the Senate.

Had his efforts succeeded, few of the weapons that we fought the Gulf War with (M-1s, F-15s, Tomahawk cruise missiles) would have been available.

The first F-15B was delivered in November 1974 to the 58th Tactical Training Wing, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, where pilot training was accomplished in both F-15A and B aircrafts.

So the F-15 thus far has had a service life of 28 years and wholesale retirement from the Air Force is still a few years away. In fact the F-15 is still being built and delivered in 2004.

How could Senator Kerry have killed the fighter when he began his Senate career in 1984, 10 years after the first F-15 were delivered?

A simple check to verify the talking points would give your more nuance (unless of course things must be black and white for you) so you could decide for yourself how accurate the charges were.

Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced by the charges and won't be until I see a more detailed refutation to these reports:

"The Republicans list something like 13 different weapons systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on."
Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that most of the weapons "votes" weren't individual votes at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. Woodruff responded with surprise to this information: "Are you saying that all these weapons systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"

Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.

Throughout Kerry's early Senate years he often voted against specific weapons systems and sometimes against the entire Pentagon budget. He voted repeatedly to cancel the B-2 Stealth bomber, for example, in 1989 , 1991 (twice ) and 1992 . He voted against the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile in 1994 and 1995. And he voted repeatedly to cut funds for the Strategic Defense Initiative (ballistic missile defense) in 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1995, and 1996. He also voted for across-the-board cuts in the military budget in 1991 and 1992, as Congress struggled to deal with mounting federal deficits and the former Soviet Union disintegrated.
Republicans shouldn't make too much of these votes, however, since President Bush's own father announced in his 1992 State of the Union address that he would be ceasing further production of B-2 bombers and MX missiles, and would cut military spending by 30 percent over several years.

And Republicans go too far when they claim that Kerry voted against such mainstay weapons of today's military as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Patriot missile. (See this Republican National Committee "fact sheet," for example.) These claims are misleading because they rest on Kerry's votes against the entire Pentagon appropriations bills in 1990 and 1995. Kerry also voted against the Pentagon authorization bills (which provide authority to spend but not the actual money) in those years and also in 1996. But none of those were votes against specific weapons systems. Kerry's critics might just as well say he was voting to fire the entire Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

[ . . . . . ]

Starting in 1997 Kerry voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well.

So 3 years after President Bush won the Governorship of Texas Senator Kerry has voted for every Defense authorization and appropriation bill. I'll ask you whether a person's more recent behaviors are more relevent than actions from two decades ago?

You know, it's kind of funny, but except for the votes against the B-2 Bomber, all of the other votes occured after the end of the Cold War.

Perhaps you don't trust the sources I use for the rebuttal, and if so, I'd be quite open to specific rebuttals. You'll notice the trend that the Republican charge is broad and lacking in specifics but the rebuttals seem to be more specific, so I'd expect your counter-rebuttal to hone in on the details even more.

A few quick minutes of Googling would have saved you the embarrassment of parroting the Party line. Of course, I may be misinterpreting your intentions in this forum, for perhaps you're seeking to be the living proof that disceptive political advertising does indeed convince people.

As I've said before there's much to criticize about Senator Kerry, but this type of low hanging fruit shouldn't be left to rot on the vines for it does us all a disservice to vote when we are ignorant of the facts.

Posted by TangoMan at August 2, 2004 01:33 AM

T-man:

I'm flummoxed by what you're getting at.

In 1984, John Kerry runs on a platform that included calling for ending procurement programs for items such as the F-15. Yes, some of those systems were already being acquired. But much of the inventory was still much older aircraft. (If the first F-15s were being delivered in 1974, IOC was probably not for a good several years, frex.) As I said earlier: If Kerry had succeeded in pushing his platform, there would have been no more F-15s acquired.

Ditto for other systems.

What that has to do with how long the F-15 has been in service now is unclear. What that has to do with F-4s having an excellent service record (but still being a good decade older in fundamental design) is even less clear.

The same applies to the M-1 tank. If Kerry had had his way, as his own campaign literature suggests, there would have been no more acquired in 1984. Considering that the Army did not fully convert to M-1s until the late 1980s (and the Marines had to borrow them in the Gulf War), that means that units would have had to soldier on with the M-60 series. A decent tank, but not up-to-snuff by the late-1980s (105mm gun, steel armor versus 120mm gun and ceramic armor).

BTW, the M-1 is still in service. No thanks to Mr. Kerry, back in the early days when they were first being acquired.

You forget: I don't work for the Bushies. So, for me, the issue isn't what Bush campaign literature is arguing, and frankly, it's not what Kerry did in the wake of the Cold War (and I don't criticize him for voting to cut defense after the Cold War, you'll notice).

My criticism is that he was supporting cutting defense during the Cold War. Is that relevant to today? Well, if you think that a willingness, in 1984, to oppose the Reagan defense build-up, when the Soviets were a major consideration in our defense planning, when DoD was still recovering from the bad old days of the post-Vietnam drawdown is a reflection of the candidate's view on the importance of defense, I'd think so. Which ever side of the aisle you're coming from.

Posted by Dean at August 2, 2004 06:03 AM

Barbara: I've no intention of trying to persuade you about anything. I have my rather firms and fiexed opinions and the Democrats, for the most pasrt, agree with them. You do, too, I imagine. Presumably, the Republicans agree with you.

If you are interested, though, go back and see how Nixon's stole Wallace's thinly disguised racist schtick about crime in 1972 and began ranting "crime in the streets". That was, and is, Republican slang "black people living next door". My saying that doesn't mean I'm ignoring crime, it just means I believe the Republicans encourage the continuation of racism.

As for school, we ought to be working to improve every public schools, rather than encourging parents and students to abandon them. Every child has a right to obtain a real education in a public school that meets the same basic requirements regardless of location. Bush's plans ignore that, substituting -- as he usually does -- a lot of emotional language for actual effort.

If someone stood up at a Republican Convention and convinced me that the Party had repudiated and condemned this behavior, I'd listen.

In the meantime, I'm not interested in a Party that deliberately turns is back on most of the country.

Posted by billg at August 2, 2004 06:47 AM

Billg,

I really have to disagree on the school bit. Here in Seattle, the comparison between the public schools and the private schools pretty much explodes the 'a little more money would help' mantra.

At the public schools: There's nearly 30 kids per room, there's roughly $12k spent per year per student officially, and there's at least 1-2k spent 'unofficially' through the various bake sales, pen drives, book drives - all to get 'supplies'. As a PhD chemical engineer, I'm not qualified to even substitute as a math or science teacher without another two year degree (Minimum, some of the teachers felt I needed a 2 year masters and the full BS-Education). The kids run the classroom. "We don't want to study that" leads to a change in plans. It sounds insane... because it IS.

At the private schools, which start around $10k per student per year, the classes are about 15 students, there's drives for pens/pencils/books - to send to a needy school, 'guest lecturers' are welcomed _without_ 30 pages of paperwork and chiding about how 'you can't _teach_ them anything, just do your performance'. We can argue about test scores too if you like 'Oh, the private schools just skim the cream'. My daughter went from 'made no progress, advanced a grade anyway' to 'She is a delight to have in class with her quixotic inquisitiveness and determination.'

Seattlites have _already_ abandoned their public schools. Very high incidence of private schooling, high incidence of homeschooling, _and_ a _very_ low number of families living inside the city limits.

There's two fundamental things to track about vouchers. The money is _attached_to_the_student. No school would lose _any_ money if they retained their student count. The only reason you hear 'but we'll lose money' is because teachers _KNOW_ they're putting out an inferior product.

The second point is that this is a _dynamic_ system. If people have mobility, the screwed up school can recognize just how screwed up they are as people VOTE with their feet. This tends to improve the _bad_ schools, not sink them completely.

Posted by Al at August 2, 2004 09:24 AM

Did I, Al, say anything about "more money"? Granted, the post had too many typoes, but I know I didn't say throw money at schools.

What I said was this: All children have a fundamental right to an education that meets certain (debatable but nonetheless real) standards. They have a right to receive that education in the public schools. If parents wish to place their children in private schools, that's their business and it should be at their cost. But, if they do, they are not absolved of their responsibility, as citizens, for the quality of the public schools.

Tossing out the "more money" charge is a scarecrow. Education is not cheap. One place to start might be not subsidizing parents who take their kids out of the public schools. Spend it on the public schools. Anything a private school can do, a public school can do, also.

If Seattle has, in fact, given up on the public schools, then I suspect Seattle has saddled itself with a class-based education system. The quality of education a Seattle child receives will be based on the income level of his or her parents. I think that is fundamentally illegitimate and undemocratic.

Posted by billg at August 2, 2004 10:52 AM

"I think that is fundamentally illegitimate and undemocratic."

Which is why it is IRONIC.
Seattle is a one party city.

Well, it _would_ be a one party city, but the Socialist Party and the Green Party offer serious candidates that often displace the Republican _and_ Democratic candidates before being relabeled as 'D' on the ballot. (Or 'non-partisan')

The Democrats have been running the education system here for a very long time. There isn't any light _in_ the tunnel.

I agree with you that it _should_not_ be so messed up. But I can tell you that it is.

The key of both charter schools and vouchers isn't what it does for the kids that go to those schools. It is what it does for the kids in the mainstream schools. It is a no brainer that a charter or voucher 'school' is better for the kids that leave. But the key is how the _mainstream_public_schools_ react. They adapt, or they die. That's brutal, but nothing else is going to jolt them out of the mentality that one-administrator-per-teacher is a good ratio. We have school officials who make more money than the President's salary.

And a charter school _is_ a public school. A public school with a code-of-conduct, and parent participation. In other words, it is a public school run like a private school - where if you act the goat, you get the boot.

The actual results, from actual trial cases _seem_ to validate an _attempt_ to fix things in this fashion. If it doesn't live up to its promise, _then_ I would be upset. But this approach hasn't been tried on this scale. The approach that has been tried nationwide gets a D for a grade. Are vouchers and standards 'the' solution? Who knows for sure. Standards are easy for some subjects (Math, Vocabulary, Reading) and very tough for others (History, Science).

But when a very large percentage of kids are homeschooled, and a very large percentage are in private schools... _and_ a large number of families have relocated out of your district - none of the cause du jour school levies are going to fix the problem.

Posted by Al at August 2, 2004 01:46 PM

Al, I know next to nothing about Seattle, but your post suggests several ways that public schools can be improved without taking a shovel to the public treasury.

As a point of contrast, I am in North Carolina, where the right to a decent public education is, in fact, enshrined in the state constitution. This is a state in which outsourcing is a reality, Many rural school districts are essentially broke, while 3 or 4 urban areas prosper by attracting out-of-state employers and residents. Obviously, school districts in Raleigh or Charlotte can get their hands on more money than districts in the boonies. A few years ago, some of those rural students sued, citing the constitution, and won. As you might imagine, the litigation and political footdragging continue.

Posted by billg at August 2, 2004 04:59 PM

How does Kerry's public life as a prosecutor, Lietenant Governor and Senator compares to President Bush's accomplishments during the same time period (1977 +)?

If Kerry's record in those posts is so wonderful, why is he only talking about his four months in Vietnam? Let me reiterate that question: Why would John Kerry not be talking about his terrific record as a prosecutor, lite-gubnor and U.S. Senator while he's running for President?

Why is his every other utterance about Vietnam instead? Could it be because he thinks it's the only thing he's got that he can spin into being better than Bush's, because Bush was a mere fighter pilot in the Air National Guard, flying one of the most difficult airframes in the ANG fleet at the time, belonging to a unit that had a significant presence in Vietnam at the time?

Tribal warfare. Heh. Defending a guy based on a record he won't even present to voters as a reason to elect him, that's tribal.

Posted by McGehee at August 2, 2004 05:43 PM

billg:

I went to a broke school in S.C. I'll spare you the stories of woe.. But amazingly, we did just fine. I finished 3rd in my class of 103, many of my graduating class went to college. Money isn't the sole issue. It's much more the teachers, parents, and administration. The single minded devotion to money, more money, more money as the only measure (all the while refusing to use testing as any sort of a measure...) while test scores trend downward despite more money.. would only make sense to someone who is ideologically wedded to a preconcieved notion.

Posted by Addison at August 2, 2004 08:25 PM

Well. Addison, I'm happy for you. And happy you agree with my point about money.

Posted by billg at August 3, 2004 09:32 AM

billg:

What exactly did these students who sued win?

My guess is that money is now diverted from wealthier school districts to poorer school districts, which would seem to go against your argument that money isn't the issue.

Unless, of course, NC went down the NJ/VT path of mandating that wealthier school districts cannot spend more than poorer school districts---in which case, I would fully expect wealthier parents to yank their kids out of the public system and put them in private schools.

Nor is it clear, in an earlier comment, how parents who pull their children out of the public school system are "subsidized." If anything, they're the ones who are doing the subsidizing---unless there are vouchers (still relatively rare), the parents are paying both local taxes (which go to the school system, but for which they are not getting any benefits) AND the private school tuition.

Posted by Dean at August 3, 2004 10:02 AM

Well, Dean, I clearly did not say money was irrelevent. I said many things can be done to improve the quality of public schools that don't require throwing money at them, which conservative ideologues routinely charge is the so-called liberal agenda. (They always rise as one to denounce anyone who disagrees with even a minor part of their right-wing shariah as a "liberal". Life is rather easy, I presume, when your faith is so simplistic that actual thought is seldom required.)

Obviously, a range of decisions can be made regarding how any given amount of money is spent.

The students in NC haven't won very much yet, other than an affirmation of the state constitution. The legislature -- dominated by Trent Lott clones -- has done little but chant the usual Republican mantras. The courts remain actively involved.

If parents want their kids to go to private schools, then they should bear the full cost. No taxpayer money should ever fund private schools in any manner. These parents remain obligated to pay their taxes. Supporting public schools is an obligation of citizenship. Our taxes to support public schools benefit everyone. When we pay them we are not buying a slot for our kids in the schools.

Posted by billg at August 4, 2004 06:03 AM

billg:

At the Federal level? I'm curious, where is this "right to an education" of which you speak located? I'm not even disagreeing with the sentiment, but I'm curious where such "rights" reside.

And if people are supposed to pay taxes for education, what happens to people who've sent their children to school already? Are they allowed to move to states/communities that have fewer children, or spend less on education?

After all, part of the reason for the growth in southern/southwestern population has been the steady flow of the more elderly to retirement communities which, in turn, tax far less in large part because they are not supporting an educational establishment. Is this somehow to be stopped or forbidden?

Posted by Dean at August 4, 2004 08:21 AM

Dean, the right to an education is included in the NC constitution, as I said. AS far as I'm concerned, only ideologues worry about the provenance of rights.

Your other questions are absurb, deliberately so, most likely. Obviously, people can move where they wish. If they happen to move to a community that doesn't use taxes to support public schools, then they won't pay taxes to support public schools. But the fact that someone has no children in the schools, or send their kids to private schools, no more absolves them of their responsibility to pay their taxes than lack of a drivers license absolves someone of paying taxes to support highway maintenance and police patrols.

The government is not a vendor selling services to customers.

Posted by billg at August 4, 2004 02:34 PM

So, if I say that we have a right to health care, education through graduate school, and a car, it doesn't matter where I think these rights come from? I'm curious, if provenance of rights is the province of ideologues, exactly where does one draw a line on what rights one has and does not have?

Furthermore, you write, on the one hand, that parents who send their children to private school should bear the full burden of those costs. As I noted, unless you live somewhere with vouchers, that is already the case. Most people who send their children to parochial schools, frex, shoulder the full burden.

But you went further, and wrote: Supporting public schools is an obligation of citizenship. If it's an "obligation" of citizenship, and not simply buying a slot for our kids in the schools, then moving away from a school district once my children have matriculated would seem to be equivalent to shirking one's obligations. I was wondering how far you were willing to go to enforce those "obligations," especially since inquiring after where these rights (and therefore obligations) come from is the province of ideologues.

Posted by Dean at August 4, 2004 04:18 PM

Dean, the right to an education is in the constitution of the state I'm living in. That fact distinguishes it from an individual's assertion that he has a right to a car, a house, or a graduate degree.

I don't care about the provenance of rights because I don't know where they come from. They exist, and the political process guarantees and enforces some of them. Any discussion of the origin of rights is doomed to focus on the beliefs of the participants. By definition, beliefs don't prove anything.

Finally, as I said, if you move to an area that does not support schools with taxes, then, of course, you aren't ignoring your responsibility to support public schools. As long as you do live in such an area, though, that responsibility remains. Many people argue that they are absolved of that responsibility if they don't have kids in school. If they live anyplace with tax-supported public schools, that's wrong.

Posted by billg at August 5, 2004 07:12 AM

Post a comment