Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

There is a certian amount of "hate Bush" in the opposition to the war...but that has always been there. Why it is gaining some traction among people who voted for Bush even is another story.

That people like Rapid Robert N use the word "incompetence" is not a good thing for "lovers" of this administration.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 10:58 AM

"Yeah, but at least they're not George Bush."

The author already mentioned religious fascists and despots.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 11:55 AM

That's exactly the idiotic comment we were expecting from you, Brian.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 12:01 PM

Which is why, if the Iraq War had been launched by President Dennis Kucinich (coalition partner: Hugo Chavez), the world would have cheered heartily.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 12:03 PM

Bob the main reason some people who voted for Bush are now against him is that they're so easily brain washed by media bias to believe Bush is evil incarnate. What other impression could anyone have if one only watched Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann or any number of other media outlets?

About 30-40 percent of the American electorate reside in the middle territory known as "independents". What this really means is that many of them have no belief system strong enough to guide them in deciding what ideals they should support. Rather they are swayed by whatever is popular or whatever ideals can be screamed loudest on TV or posted most prominently on the internet or national print media.

Another 20-30 percent are die hard liberals, and they will do or say anything (don't believe me? read anything posted by Swiderski on this blog) to convince those "independents" that they are right to believe Bush to be Hitler-lite, regardless of facts.

With 80 percent (I'm being generous, 95 percent is closer to the truth) of the media hating (not just dislike, but undiluted HATE) Bush and 20-30 percent of 300 million Americans feeling the same way is it any wonder Bush is so loathed?

Evidently you Bob are in that independent crowd. You claim to have supported Ronald Reagan, but by some means that is unfathomable to me you moved from Reagan to Howard Dean. Bush is by no means Reagan, but he is infinitely closer than Dean is. So something changed you Bob, you were swayed by something. A true Reagan believer, someone who believed in Reagan ideals and not just the hype, could dislike Bush but never loathe him to the extent you do. And a true Reagan believer would never go over to the liberal camp.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 31, 2007 01:39 PM

Cecil says:

"Bob the main reason some people who voted for Bush are now against him is that they're so easily brain washed by media bias to believe Bush is evil incarnate."

No. The reason some people who voted for Bush are now against him is because time after time he has proven himself quite incompetent. Had he proven himself competent, had his pronouncements matched reality, no matter the extent of the media bias, he would not have fallen so low that only another war can possibly boost his ratings.

The person I blame though isn't Bush. He appears in every way to be a very likeable fellow, good company on the Ranch etc. Not at all the evil monster he is made out to be. What he's had is really crappy advice, from Dick Cheney down.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 02:19 PM

Swiderski,

You wouldn't know real fascism and despotism even IF it imprisoned you, put your face into a cage, and released starving rats into it.

Rand,

You have far more patience than I. I offer my respect and admiration.

*deep bow*

Posted by MG at March 31, 2007 02:20 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 31, 2007 01:39 PM

Cecil

DO NOT EVER compare Ronaldus The Great to this idiotic administraion. The problem is that YOU dont understand Ronaldus the Great or his Revolution.

Lets dispense with a few minor issues before moving on to the main beam.

"Bush hate" is not what the problem is in The Republic right now, nor is it a media that is "hating" Bush. Thats like saying "The refs cost us the game". The media did not like Ronaldus. Sorry I was alive and very well informed during the 80's. I watched one negative story after another about Ronaldus during both his first term when the economy was diving before recovering and during events like Iran Contra.

The media was as savage to Ronaldus as they are today to Bush, and during the impeachment nonesense were to Clinton. That is their job in a free state.

Nor are Bush's problems because of the fact that the people of The Republic are "spoon fed" by a liberal media.

the problem is and has been and will likely continue to be is that THIS ADMINISTRATION IS INCOMPETENT. Ronaldus was not. From the top down. Ronaldus could call the Soviets "the evil empire" and joke about "the bombing commences in 10 minutes" and watch the media implode but yet hold the American people. Why?

He understood leadership. He understood having competent people in the administration that could (eventually) produce results that spoke for themselves, and were also "spinable" in terms of politics.

This admininstration is incompetent.

That is not just me...Try Robert Novak...Try Bill KRistol...

are you going to say "they are not true Reaganites" either?

If this administration had (before Gates) GOT A SINGLE THING RIGHT about Iraq. It wouldnt matter what "the press" thinks.

competence speaks for itself, it is obvious on its own face, and with correct PR it is an awesome tool politically. Do you seriously think that this administration is competent?

It cannot even fire its own attorneys without stepping into a mud pie.

Ronaldus the Great was the finest President we have had in my lifetime. He was probably the finest of the alltime four in the last century in terms of LEADING the American people to an "undiscovered country".

This administration has botched everything it has set its mind to. Iraq is my principle worry, because in screwing that up for three or four years it has unleashed a whirlwind that threatens to bring down western civilization...and has so badly lost the bubble in explaining that danger to the American people...that as Bill Kristol reports he (Bush) more or less has let his admiminstration get a "KICK ME" sign on the back.

It is the most incompetent administration since James Earl Carter...and it makes all of us who are true believers in American Greatness weep...not offer pandy mouth excuses like "the dog ate my homework" aka "the media is the reason for it".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 02:21 PM

Robert,

Bill Kristol should talk! He's a leader of the bunch that sold Bush on Iraq. So it's because Bush screwed it up? Not that the whole thing was folly from the get go?

One has to love how the neocons are squeaking out of it. Maybe it was the message(Kristol, Kagan, Wolfowitz, Feith), not the messenger (Bush). Bush's fault is that he honestly thought these guys knew what they were talking about. That and the, "let's not pick any of Dad's advisors" thing.

So what's Kagan going to say next, now that in the last two weeks the Surge he praised in an op-ed a month or so back isn't working anymore? Bush screwed up again?

Posted by Offside at March 31, 2007 02:49 PM

The surge is working...all the metrics are going in the correct direction. It is people like you who equate failure with metrics that the insurgency tries to highlight but which in the long term are meaningless that are as big a problem people as the neocons here who view anyone who disagrees with Bush as a "Bush hater".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 04:51 PM

Posted by Offside at March 31, 2007 02:49 PM

I would add this.

I oppossed going into Iraq not so much because "it was the wrong thing to do"...but because it was clearly going to be done badly.

The excersize of American power has made the world a safer place and has saved it from the "dark lights" that threaten at times to tip it over into the base evil of many of the worlds flawed regimes.

Why I oppossed Bush almost from the moment he announced for President is that I knew, unlike the hangers on here, that he was a light weight who had no intellectual curiousity and no real manager capabilities.

It was clear "how" he was going to win the nomination...slime his opposition and throw out a few "red meat" sticks to the "far right nutties" whose sole claim to fame was Clinton hating. It was clear from the moment that he didnt have a clue who the General was in Pakistan who had over thrown a duely elected democracy and said (quoting) "It brings stability" that Bush's "clue" factor extended only as far as his advisors...

and it was clear that he had picked the worst of Dad's bunch.

that didnt stop the right wing ideologues from cheering him on, ...

but doesnt change the Kristol et al are correct that the only way to "fix" the mideast is the same thing that the US has done in Europe, Japan, and other places, and that is to activily seek cultural change, in flawed cultures.

The problem with the far right ideolgues here and other places is that they cant figure out how the "adults" have blown it so badly and now need someone else to blame.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 04:58 PM

...as big a problem people as the neocons here who view anyone who disagrees with Bush as a "Bush hater".

Robert, I disagree with Bush on many, many issues. This is a stupid straw man.

And I think that I'm going to simply ban the word "neocon," since its use almost invariably indicates someone who has shut down his brain, and has no actual arguments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 05:37 PM

Robert, I guess here's something to support your view of Bush:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html?ei=5090&en=5fb3ec40fbc14c40&ex=1333080000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

I'm skeptical of your view "that the metrics of the surge are moving in the right direction" says anything significant for the long term.

You talk of cultural change as the requirement. Can you really see us as capable of doing this in such an alien culture? The delta required in Japan or Germany seems so very small in comparison to the delta required in Iraq.

The more important issue is that already about 60% of the American public want us out of Iraq very soon. The cultural change we want to see in Iraq is probably going to take, what, ten years at least?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 05:53 PM

It (the cultural change in Germany and Japan) only seem small because they are not facing us "now" imminent...and the other is.

Germany and Japan were two of the most militaristic cultures on the planet pre WWII. We more or less milked that out of them through a bloody brutal war and a very very enforced peace.

It takes a long time and it takes patiences and competence...but it really is the only option.

Look MIdeast culture as it is expressed right now through radical Islam is completly flawed. It is as flawed as most of the cultures in AFrica are. But I dont care if they are killing and eating each other in AFrica because their doing so doesnt affect The Republic.

It does in the Mideast and NOTHING is going to change that for quite sometime, another 50-100 years maybe...and if we do not manage the change "well" we will find that eventually we have lost our own culture.

Americans have for the most part become "soft" and "fat" in the last 30 years. We dont think that "anything" external can change our lives, our culture and that is completly wrong.

The reason more and more Americans are tempted to "run away" is because they lack confidence in 1) the ability of the Bush administration to manage the situation and 2) because they have been misstated to so much about the threat, they really dont believe it anymore.

We are in a fight for the future of our culture our way of life.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 06:19 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 05:37 PM

Rand.

It is your blog and you can ban whatever you want to ban.

To quote Howard Dean, "you have the power".

I dont think that it changes anything however.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 06:22 PM

I dont think that it changes anything however.

Of course you don't. Which is to say, you completely miss the point.

As usual, arguments just roll off you as if they haven't even occurred.

I'll try again. On what basis do you foolishly think that people here call anyone who disagrees with Bush a "Bush hater"? The people we call "Bush haters" are people who mindlessly hate Bush (e.g., Mr. Swiderski, who apparently does almost everything mindlessly), not those who simply disagree with him, as many of us do, on many issues.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 06:26 PM

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 31, 2007 05:53 PM

I will go read your link.

before I do.

The sad thing about Bush, the very sad thing, is that I think that he is basically "a good guy". I think that 9/11 was a wake up call to him and that he basically wants to do the right thing.

The problem is that he has no internal "intrinsic" clue as to "how" to do that. He has never in his life been very inquisitive, about the world and the events shaping it. He rules his life by friendship and loyalty toward him rather then an ability to judge competence and intelligence...

I dont think that he has been very critical of how events were proceeding until he started to find out, what ROve was misleading everyone else about...that he was taking a "thumping" in the 06 elections.

My guess is that this was the first inclination he got that the "people" were not buying his "sunshine in Iraq" song and that is what caused him to make some good changes.

Cheney and the rest of the two dimensional thinkers in his administration have cost him four years in terms of being able to "win" in Iraq and really hurt The Republic in the process. I cannot even start to express my disgust for those zeros. It is only slightly above my disgust for people like Colin Powell who were smart enough to know that those people were turds and did nothing.

Before 9/11 I use to chuckle at an administration that was to my view "what the far right of the GOP deserved". The sad thing is that really The American people deserved better...and so did Bush.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 06:28 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 06:26 PM

Rand.

because those people call "me" a Bush hater.

and because any person who thinks Bush' problems are based on a "liberal" media...is not dealing in the real world.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 06:30 PM

Which people? The "neocons"? Will the conspiracy never end?

Try again. I disagree with Bush on many issues, and have so stated. Yet no one calls me a Bush hater (in fact, I'm often accused by the morons in the peanut gallery of being a Bush lackey). Why do you think that is?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 06:33 PM

RAnd.

I'll try again.

People who put "Liberal" in front of the main stream media, are people who are not thinking, but are stuck on ideology.

Here is a hint...the far left..they call the same media "conservative media".....they have ideological mush for brains as well.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 06:41 PM

Robert says:

"The reason more and more Americans are tempted to "run away" is because they lack confidence in 1) the ability of the Bush administration to manage the situation and 2) because they have been misstated to so much about the threat, they really dont believe it anymore."

Can't disagree with you on this.

Very disheartening, depressing and only makes me reach out for another stiff one.

Posted by at March 31, 2007 06:42 PM

Bob you make me want to gag when you start throwing around the "Ronaldus" BS as if you understand anything about Reagan and what he stood for.
You supported HOWARD DEAN. That says all there is to say about just how little you understand what Reagan was about.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 31, 2007 06:44 PM

I wanted to laugh at that NYT article with Dowd but it's too sad. Reminds me of how the far-left took advantage of Sheehan. The Times hates Bush as much as anyone and will publish anything to discredit him. This guy has suffered great personal loss and if you read the article, he was "chafing" years ago. He even thinks Kerry was right. Anyone who advocates withdrawing either doesn't understand the consequences of that or is just after political gain. Look who he likes now, Obama. Read this about leaving. http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/03/30/the_wars_against_radical_islamic_insurgents

Posted by Bill Maron at March 31, 2007 06:56 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 31, 2007 06:44 PM

No Cecil...the guy who doesnt understand Reagan and his Revolution is well you. LOL

The "meat grinders" in politics saw Ronaldus as a far right toady that would cater to their every whim. Hence he was "correct" on abortion etc...issues he really cared almost nothing for.

What The Reagan Revolution was about was not so much "destroying" or "abolishing" government that was meat grinder stuff for the far right...it was about making "government" work to institute policies which would change America.

The far right and left are caught up in the ideological purity of politics...Candidate X is this on abortion or that on gay rights and now he or she is this or that on "the war"...

But what Ronaldus was about was making government "work" to accomplish task that were designed to shape and change America creating a new "country".

Reagan did that on his signature issue, which was destroying The Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan stoof for "nothing" in his life if he is not defined by his signature issue which is/was that The Soviet Union should be cast on the scrap heap of history...and he did it.

Folks, apparantly like you read some conservative uberallis motive into his actions. But he did not shrink the size of government, he went along or agreed with almost every increase in domestic spending that occurred, he didnt privatize the space program etc etc.

His entire administration was focused "like a laser beam" (grin) on knocking down IVAN and he did it.

His second "drive" was in bringing competence to the federal government, and with some trivial exceptions (aka NASA for instance) he did it. When he left office the Government worked, it did what government does (or should do) about as effectivly as possible.

My support for Howard Dean (and my growing fears as was reflected on his and other "blogs") was because I hoped that Howard could return some sanity to a government which by 04 was stuttering from one fiasco to another blundering everywhich way but loose, and that included Iraq (and dealing with terrorism).

I really "feel" for the far right. They are stuck cheering for an administration which has bungled EVERYTHING it has attempted.

Contrast that with Reagan...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 06:59 PM

Very disheartening, depressing and only makes me reach out for another stiff one.

Posted by at March 31, 2007 06:42 PM

It is truly amazing to me how inept these folks are in general and in particular on foreign policy issues.

As my friend Brian says when people he works for in politics are doing stupid things..."drink heavily"...

What is stunning to me is just how remorsefully stupid and incompetent these people are. I love Cheney the most.

When Rummy is on his "good by" day at the five sided Building old Dick stands up and calls him something like "the best SecDef ever"....which is kind of funny seeing his boss has just shown Rummy the door.

So the question comes is Dick just insulting his boss or making another oblivious to reality statement? There can be only two choices.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 07:06 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 31, 2007 06:44 PM

that should be "my growing fears"...that Howard was not able to run a competent campaign and hence form a competent administration.

Dean's campaign ultimatly was run about as competently as this administration has run Iraq.

See Cecil I have this thing...I like competent people and groups...and I view that in governing as more important then ideology.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 07:09 PM

he didnt privatize the space program

Actually, he was the first president to make a major policy change in that direction. He created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, creating a regulatory regime for commercial launches.

...an administration which has bungled EVERYTHING it has attempted...

Mindless hyperbole like this is the reason that few here take you seriously, Robert. You may be getting good exercise for your fingers, but like Swiderski, no one's mind is changed by anything you waste my disk space with.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 07:12 PM

I like competent people and groups...and I view that in governing as more important then ideology.

Ah, I see. You think it's more important to do the thing right than to do the right thing.

Well, you'd have loved Mussolini, then. After all, he did make the trains run on time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 07:23 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 07:12 PM

Rand...

you can reveal all you want in the glorious success that the OCST has been in the oh what 15-20 years since its inception of pushing private industry to the stars...I guess you have to find a place to cheer wherever one can in these desperate times...

As for this administration and bungling...well I am sure you can come up with another like example of where it has not...Iraq, New Orleans, just to name two seem be larger then any competent example you will find.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 07:31 PM

Ah, I see. You think it's more important to do the thing right than to do the right thing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 07:23 PM

Doing the right thing is valuless when it is not done correctly particularly when it is done ineptly. There are so many examples from this administration which neatly illustrate that.

Mussolini probably wouldnt be an example I would chose...he was really not all that competent.

and bringing him into a discussion on American politics is one of your famous "strawmen" anyway.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 07:34 PM

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 31, 2007 07:23 PM

as we say in the flying business...

if you dont know what you are doing, dont do anything. you are depending on random chance and it is already in play.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 31, 2007 07:35 PM

MG: "You wouldn't know real fascism and despotism even IF it imprisoned you, put your face into a cage, and released starving rats into it."

How about if it kidnapped me in the night, hung me up by my ankles, beat me with sticks, attached electrodes to my nuts, shoved a flashlight up my ass, water-boarded me to the point of suffocation, and then kicked me to death because I wouldn't sign a confession? You wouldn't know fascism if you voted for it.

"[Reagan] was probably the finest of the alltime four in the last century in terms of LEADING the American people to an "undiscovered country"."

Ronald Reagan was not a leader, he was an actor playing a role while the gang of felons he appointed innovated new ways to break the law and subvert the Constitution. Despite the dubious distinction of having the most felony convictions against its appointees of any administration in history, the PR was so finely crafted that many ignorant people still insist it was some kind of paragon of moral leadership.

Then, of course, the GOP Cultural Revolution sought to cement their reinvention of history by naming everything after him while he still lived, true to form of their personality cult tactics. Personally, I'm surprised that lunatic Norquist didn't succeed in getting him on currency, because it certainly wasn't for lack of egregiousness in the Gingrich Congress. Their propaganda innovations really paved the way for the Living God years of the W regime, and there'd probably be giant wall murals of Reagan and Bush like Lenin and Stalin by now if the latter hadn't committed the cardinal sin of failure.

Rand: "I disagree with Bush on many issues, and have so stated. Yet no one calls me a Bush hater (in fact, I'm often accused by the morons in the peanut gallery of being a Bush lackey)"

How would you characterize someone who said they "disagree with Ahmadinejad on many issues"?

Robert: "Germany and Japan were two of the most militaristic cultures on the planet pre WWII."

They were two of the most militaristic *states* on the planet, but their cultures were more generally characterized by obedience of and loyalty to government institutions. Ergo, when their governments surrendered and accepted US command, the people almost universally transferred their obedience and loyalty to US institutions. The same was true in East Germany with the Russians, with the Stasi quickly outstripping the KGB in totalitarian efficiency, and to this day Eastern Germans routinely elect Communists.

The story is far different in Arab culture, where the concept of a political state takes a distant back seat to family, tribe, and religion in the people's loyalties. Since governments in the region exist solely to serve the interests of those powerful enough to take control, there is no cultural investment in them, and very few people identify with the political state.

The Iraqi political state was toppled, and people in the region thought that the meaning of freedom would be a benevolent dictatorship with some public advisory bodies--the only historical example of "good government" in the Arab world. But since the actual system requires their active support, rather than mere submission, it never materialized and has been nominal at best since being put in effect. They've had their heads down since history began, and even Allah supposedly demands strict limits on individual will, so it borders on retarded for anyone to have thought we'd simply write a nice constitution and they'd magically know how to be free.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 31, 2007 08:05 PM

The Bush administration is a victim of its success. The three main problems it faced after 9/11 were: (1) prevent an expanded repetition of that event; (2) salvage the economy that was in danger of going into a tailspin; (3) involve the nation irreversibly in the necessary global war against Islamic terrorism.
All 3 goals have been achieved.
Now the first 2 achievements are being largely taken for granted, and therefore the third one is largely resented. Hence the current unpopularity of Bush. Lincoln in 1864, Truman in 1951 were even more unpopular. These cases are quite comparable, and history's
verdict on GWB may prove similar to its verdict on Truman, or even on Lincoln.

Posted by jjustwwondering at April 1, 2007 12:30 AM

jjustwwondering: "The Bush administration is a victim of its success."

The whole country is a victim of their "success," which it really isn't. The magnitude of 9/11 made it easy to exaggerate the actual nature of the threat, but the reality is that the tactics were simple enough that even the Columbine killers or the Manson family could have pulled off something similar if it had merely occurred to them. Al Qaeda got lucky, pure and simple, and the devastation was so intense that people simply had to believe we were in some kind of "world war" against a shadow enemy.

The Bush regime exploited this fact to maximum effect, extorting dictatorial powers that no president in history has ever held, including having people tortured, and released boilerplate terror alerts every time their polls dipped leading up to the 2004 election. But as reality caught up, and they had no actual conspiracies to thwart that weren't thwarted within weeks of 9/11, all they've been able to do is claim credit for the fact that the threat never was as people assumed and they portrayed it to be. Every time they've pretended to have uncovered major new evidence of something, it's quickly discovered they dug the information up from years ago and tried to "forget" the fact that it was discredited or led nowhere.

"(1) prevent an expanded repetition of that event;"

With any level of increased security, a repetition even an order of magnitude smaller would have been highly unlikely.

"(2) salvage the economy that was in danger of going into a tailspin;"

A function of the lack of repetition. In fact, the economy did go into a tailspin, millions of people sank below the poverty line, and most of those additional poor still have not gotten back. Well-paying jobs disappeared and were replaced with fast food work, which the regime attempted to categorize as "manufacturing," and Bush's first term was the first since Hoover to have negative net job growth.

Very little of that, however, was a product of 9/11 so much as Bush's economic policies, including his attachment of massive capital gains tax cuts to the "emergency" spending bill funding his long-planned invasion of Iraq.

"(3) involve the nation irreversibly in the necessary global war against Islamic terrorism."

Propaganda gibberish.

"All 3 goals have been achieved."

The first goal couldn't have failed to be achieved unless we deliberately did nothing to increase our security; the 2nd failed; and the 3rd never existed in the first place. Bush's legacy is an awesome, gargantuan, mountainous, titanic, cosmic heap of lies, delusions, propaganda, and unreality, some of which I have no doubt he actually believes. Anyone remember "Axis of Evil"? That's right, three countries with absolutely no relationship whatsoever are an "axis" because it sounds good in a speech. Just one example of the sort of lunatic asylum politics these maniacs have played with our national security since the beginning.

"Lincoln in 1864, Truman in 1951 were even more unpopular."

If you're saying popularity doesn't reflect merit, then I agree, but if you're trying to actually turn unpopularity into some kind of validation you've clearly left Earth orbit. Hitler was quite unpopular by the end of his "administration," as were lesser stains like Slobodan Milosevic and Manuel Noriega--Bush's kind of people.

"These cases are quite comparable, and history's
verdict on GWB may prove similar to its verdict on Truman, or even on Lincoln."

How you can even imply equivalence between George W. Bush and Truman or Lincoln without wanting to backhand yourself in the face is beyond me. Every vile, inhuman scumbag with a brand name personality and a greater than 4-digit body count has a dedicated fan club who thinks his memory will be vindicated by history.

Your statement reminds me of something I heard about a new Russian TV show that purports to show the "human side" of Stalin, portraying him as a loving father and dedicated patriot whose grand vision is twisted by disloyal underlings. No doubt Norquist & co. are busily making similar plans for the Divine Leader's triumphant image-resurrection, perhaps with a rerelease of those Bush coins they tried to hawk shortly after 9/11.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 1, 2007 03:24 AM

Kucinich, Chavez, Matthews, Olbermann, Reagan, Dean, Hitler, Cheney, Novak, Kristol, Gates, Carter, Kagan, Wolfowitz, Feith, Powell, Dowd, Sheehan, Kerry, Obama, Rumsfeld, Mussolini, Norquist, Gingrich, Lenin, Stalin, Ahmadinejad, Lincoln, Truman, Manson, Melosevic, Noriega.

Name droppers.

Posted by D Anghelone at April 1, 2007 06:09 AM

I'm not sure that any of this debate is constructive.

Posted by Adrasteia at April 1, 2007 06:52 AM

I'm not sure that any of this debate is constructive.

No kidding? I don't think that either Mr. Swiderski or Mr. Oler are capable of adding constructively to any political debate.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 1, 2007 07:15 AM

"jjustwondering: The Bush administration is a victim of its success."

I want some of what this guy is smoking.

My first full bellied laugh of the day.

Posted by Offside at April 1, 2007 07:35 AM

There seems to be an assumption that the alternative to Bush is something better.

However, the alternative to Bush in 2000 was Gore and the alternative in 2004 was Kerry.

Is there any reason, apart from the "no one could do worse" fallacy, to believe that Gore/Kerry would have done better?

FWIW, the Katrina complaint is especially ripe. Tens of billions of dollars have been pissed away for decades and it's all Bush's fault because he hasn't done significantly better? Right.... He should have driven the buses and forcibly evacuated folks. Nagin etc are being outdone by folks from Mississippi...

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 07:42 AM

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 1, 2007 07:15 AM

to already made up minds incapable of any reflective thought, probably nothing can be added.

The base of both parties.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 08:10 AM

"There seems to be an assumption that the alternative to Bush is something better."

The assumption is that something other than deliberate malfeasance will yield better results, and I'm inclined to think it's justified. I suggest an experiment to illustrate: Find the most expensive and valuable computer you own--this equipment will represent America. Now, let's call the "alternative" in question just a random sequence of commands or buttons or whatever, just to give dear George the sporting chance he wouldn't have against an actual program that does something. Carry out the random sequence, record how much damage has been done, then reboot.

Now carry out the action sequence representing Bush's effect on America: Take a sledgehammer, swing it over your head, and smash the equipment repeatedly as if you were Jack Nicholson. Remove what remains of the chip and let it soak for a few hours in an unflushed toilet, then give it a good solid ten minutes in a blow torch, followed by an acid bath. Take the remnant, if any, and place it on railroad tracks. Once suitably pressed, place it in a bubble gum wrapper and bury it in a Superfund site.

Following several weeks of in-depth analysis, I am confident you will conclude that the former action sequence was better for the system (America) than actions taken to deliberately compromise its efficiency.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 1, 2007 08:17 AM

Is there any reason, apart from the "no one could do worse" fallacy, to believe that Gore/Kerry would have done better?

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 07:42 AM

Andy...

What you are doing is "pitching" speculation on one hand against hard reality on the other.

I dont know what Gore would have done post 9/11 and neither do you. Gore has not said what he would have done post 9/11 and there are no data points to draw any firm conclusions on speculation.

Gore has his liabilities in terms of "action". Where this President and his administration are not very reflective on history and reality at all, Gore seems to be extroadinarily reflective and very "mired" sometimes in reality. He seems to have some problems (in my view) projecting a unknowable future from the present. A prime requirement of leadership is to see "what could be" and projecting that to people who are concerned with "what is". Gore seems to have some problem doing that...but to be fair so does this administration and its spin doctors.

The only thing that can be evaluated is "what has happened". While we all hope (and I think) that things will turn out well in the mideast; it is hard for any objective observer to see anything done there so far by this administration (before the surge) done with even the most modest level of competency.

With no shortage of "third rate" actors in their administration Bush has plundered from one catastrophe to the next both foreign and domestic.

I agree with you that the recovery from Katrina is primarly a local problem.

The measure of incompetence of THIS administration in that "event" was as a pivot point the inability to manage their message to the American people in a competent fashion that prevented them (the administration) from becoming the tar baby of bad news.

This is just a measure of the incompetence in the administration. So far I dont see anything that Gonzales has done illegally...

a friend described it pretty well however as "dropping a turd with your pants on"....

there is measure of incompetency there.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 08:19 AM

Is there any reason, apart from the "no one could do worse" fallacy, to believe that Gore/Kerry would have done better?

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 07:42 AM

Andy.

to answer your question directly. Go back and read Gore's San Fransisco speech about why going to Iraq was a mistake.

HE NAILED IT. He fracken nailed it.

At the time The Administration and all its toadies called him a lot of names and worse...

BUT HE GOT EVERYTHING RIGHT.

That alone makes him more competent then say CONDI who in her 1000 dollar suits got every thing WRONG.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 08:21 AM

I want some of what this guy is smoking.

Posted by Offside at April 1, 2007 07:35 AM..

It is called "Dick Cheney happy weed". take a puff or two of it and all problems seem "less".

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 08:23 AM

Gore was VP for 8 years while all this was festering.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 09:06 AM

Gore was VP for 8 years while all this was festering.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 09:06 AM

And FDR was President while Pearl Harbor was being planned...your point?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 11:48 AM

I don't recall anyone calling Oler a Bush Hater.

As I recall, I noted that he is typically ignorant of facts and uses tangential topics, like historical name dropping and strawmen, to sound more intelligent and considerate than he really is.

Posted by Leland at April 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Pretty standard stuff from the "extremes" of the various ideological factions. With some slight modifiers to who you are firing at "you" would fit well on say the far left. They use almost exactly the same rhetoric...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 01:09 PM

I note that Oler doesn't bother to tell us what relevant good things that Gore did when he had the chance. Surely he can spin bombing an asprin factory into a grand strategery.

> And FDR was President while Pearl Harbor was being planned...your point?

Unlike Gore, FDR did other things, lend-lease and the like. And, no one ever argued that Pearl Harbor was a bright mark on FDR's record.

If Gore is such a super-genius, what do we have to show for his 8 years?

I'm not arguing that Gore should have done something that would have stopped 9/11. I'm pointing out that he did nothing useful about the Middle East.

Then again, he only had 8 years. Oler's position appears to be that everything would have been okay if he'd just gotten another 4-8.

Posted by Andy Freeman at April 1, 2007 03:23 PM

Andy.

Gore was VP...

in everyother administration but "this" one the VP more or less has little or no influence on policy and only really two Constitutional duties. Gore really did NOT make policy on almost anything in the Clinton administration.

That may come as a shock to those who are use to VP Dick more or less playing the "number 1" role, but to quote the famous anchor person "That is the way it is".

"Asprin factory"...is this a reference to the Sudan cruise missile attack? Do still buy that right wing paranoia?

Clinton took a good hit at OBL and his potential to "dual use" some serious chem warfare. It was a good hit...the same guy suggested to Clinton that he do it...who suggested to Bush that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk".

You know that dont you? LOL

You understand that the VP has two Constitutional duties "normally" dont you?

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at April 1, 2007 08:46 PM

Does anyone else come across a comment that runs for several paragraphs and just immediately start to scroll past it? I mean I read like the first paragraph and then mysteriously my mouses scroll wheel furiously begins to click like a gattling gun to scroll past, I just can't explain it. Me thinks brian, offsides, oler, and the like can save their carpal tunnel for the Star Trek forums or the Furry Fandom.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 1, 2007 08:56 PM

"Me thinks brian, offsides, oler, and the like can save their carpal tunnel for the Star Trek forums or the Furry Fandom."

Josh,
You're commenting on a blog called Transterrestrial Musings. Don't hide from who you are. FIAWOL!

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 04:12 AM

Does anyone else come across a comment that runs for several paragraphs and just immediately start to scroll past it? I mean I read like the first paragraph

It takes you that long? You are certainly not alone.

Posted by Leland at April 2, 2007 06:58 AM

I don't think Bush is incompetent at all, at his main goals.

The trouble is that his main goals were getting elected, getting re-elected and making astronomical amounts of money for his oil, military equipment and construction industry buddies.

Of course it didn't hurt that he had tens of millions of dollars to spend on spin, propaganda and out-and-out advertising, either. Or that the American education system is in such a parlous state that very few can see through the BS.

The British prime minister is exactly the same, except that for reasons best known to himself one can substitute George W. Bush for the industry buddies. And Britain has been messed up even worse (pension system near-destroyed, society turning into an Orwellian nightmare and every traditional part of politics destroyed) than has America.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at April 2, 2007 09:12 AM

FC says: Or that the American education system is in such a parlous state that very few can see through the BS.

There is another inherited problem from the left. Trying to find another solution is difficult. Dems have been trying to solve it with money for over sixty years...still broke.

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 11:00 AM

Mac: "There is another inherited problem from the left."

The very concept of public education is inherited from the left, so in a way you're right. Had conservatives been in charge the whole time, we would literally not be having these or any other problems with it.

"Dems have been trying to solve it with money for over sixty years...still broke."

Your timescale is a little off, Mac. The US had the best system in the world until Reaganomics pulled the rug from under thousands of communities. Yes, restoring (adjusted) funding can't undo an entire generation of neglect, but we need to rebuild the environment for excellence before it can be nurtured back to health.

People who went to school at the time tell me roughly the same stories: E.g. matriculating in a high school with ample quantities of recent textbooks, multi-faceted music and arts programs, and classes actually held in classrooms, but then graduating from the same high school with "shredded wheat" hand-me-down books, decimated or nonexistent activities, and classes being shunted into trailers because new construction was financially out of the question. The hemmorhage was so pervasive, that even some relatively affluent communities were sporting trailer classrooms by the early '90s.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 2, 2007 06:49 PM

Squidward says: The US had the best system in the world until Reaganomics pulled the rug from under thousands of communities.

Incorrect, partly. Reaganomics did decrease the gashed-artery spending that had already spiraled out of control. That part is true. The unfortunate part is that the unions (left leaning) managed to still keep the percentages of money going to the same places...IE administration and not teachers. Yet, at the same time, the left screams for more and more money to fund the schools, yet it always fails because they use the money incorrectly and the systems fails again. Reagan tried a novel approach that might have helped, but we'll never know because of the mismanagement of the unions and school administrations.

Brian says: (see that?): but we need to rebuild the environment for excellence

Absolutely correct. I believe that the original idea suggested from the Bush campaign to make schooling competetive is a good idea. Additionally, allowing vouchers for parents to put their kids where they think they should be is another good idea. The latter alone would allow a large number of parents to become much more involved in schooling. Both ideas together, or alone, may help more than the old tried and untrue of breaking the bank to fund more administration.

Brian says: The hemmorhage was so pervasive, that even some relatively affluent communities were sporting trailer classrooms by the early '90s.

Here in Texas, there are several NEW schools, most in affluent or middle class neighborhoods that have trailers for some classes. The rooms work, they're comfortable and a darn sight cheaper. If it works, use it.

Brain says: matriculating in a high school with ample quantities of recent textbooks...

Which publishing companies kept publishing at a fever pitch every flippin year. Textbooks don't need to be replaced every year. Schools can use textbooks for quite some time in many of their classes. With the money saved from not buying new textbooks that don't have new information in them, the remaining funding should go to those who do the hard work, teachers, not more administration.

Posted by Mac at April 2, 2007 09:17 PM

My daughters HS opened its doors for the first time this past Fall. They started with 3 grade levels, and they are at 90% capacity. Next year, the 4th grade is added, and they will have to add trailers and a new wing to a brand new HS. This is a new school in a relatively affluent area (not a lot of money but more than exists on the other side of the district). At one point, over 150 students attended the school who were not registered or districted to go to the school (and no, they were not all illegal immigrants).

On the other hand, I was in public education during the Reagan years. Indeed most of my secondary school education was performed during this time. I cannot relate to BS's claim. We had a few trailers, but they were used for subjects which didn't require students sitting in a classroom all the time: P.E., theater arts, shop class. It made sense not to have a cheap lecture area when these classes needed it.

My textbooks were passed along year to year, but then they were in college as well, if I choose to save money. I note my children keep most of their books, and that's really annoying. Who really needs "Introduction to World History"...

Oh...

Wait...

BS was making the point. I guess that makes sense now.

Posted by Leland at April 3, 2007 06:33 AM

"Reaganomics did decrease the gashed-artery spending that had already spiraled out of control."

That kind of ass-backwards attitude, treating education budget cuts as a stop-loss, is the reason our school system went from best in the world to second-rate in less than 15 years. There is almost no worthier purpose for the money than education, and no sector it could be spent on that would have more direct benefits for society. That is why the best systems in America are also the best-funded; a common-sense fact that years of brainwashing by conservatives has turned into an astonishing revelation for some.

"The unfortunate part is that the unions (left leaning) managed to still keep the percentages of money going to the same places"

Don't try to blame the consequences of conservative policy on the teachers it targeted. They defended the integrity and liveability of their profession from Republicans who wanted to bust them down to the level of burger flippers, and in the process stopped the wholesale destruction of public education.

"IE administration and not teachers."

Administration is a fixed cost, which means it takes up a larger percentage of a budget when you cut it.

"Yet, at the same time, the left screams for more and more money to fund the schools, yet it always fails because they use the money incorrectly and the systems fails again."

You keep ignoring the facts, and I keep having to remind you--America had the undisputed best school system in the world until the budget cuts started.

"Reagan tried a novel approach that might have helped"

Reagan's approach wasn't novel: It was the same conservative ideology that had defined American politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and all that it helped accomplish was turning back the clock to a time before our schools were the envy of the world.

Everything about conservative ideology is opposed to universal education--it gets in the way of religious fanaticism, it gets in the way of military recruiting, it redistributes wealth from the rich to the middle-class and poor, and it reinforces social mobility that undermines the political power of the wealthy.

"I believe that the original idea suggested from the Bush campaign to make schooling competetive is a good idea."

In other words, poor and/or challenged students are dumped into garbage heap schools with even less funding and less support, while the children of the affluent suck up even more funding. Why is it that conservative "solutions" for every problem, including problems caused by earlier conservative "solutions," always seem designed to make the problems worse? You do realize that the point of public school is to *guarantee* all children a quality education, don't you?

"The latter alone would allow a large number of parents to become much more involved in schooling."

So let me see if I have this straight, maybe I'm a little confused: Some parent already doesn't have time to help their child while education is free and doesn't require them to do anything, but if the government cuts them a check for PART of private school tuition, forcing them to somehow raise the remainder; and IF said private school will admit their child despite the difficulties precipitating the transfer, requiring a significant parental time commitment to find such a school and then get admitted; THEN the parent will spontaneously have even MORE time to devote to their child? Do these vouchers include exemptions from time, space, and logic?

"The rooms work, they're comfortable and a darn sight cheaper. If it works, use it."

"If it works, use it" is the motto of poverty. There is a very real psychological cost of regressing to such a mentality, and it exerts a corrosive influence on the society in general. All that separates us from becoming more like Brazil or China, with shanty towns and incredibly steep economic gradients, is the culture we inherited that doesn't accept "good enough." Maybe it sounds trivial to be outraged that children are forced to learn in glorified cargo crates because their district, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, can't afford to have actual buildings added, but it illustrates conditions that cannot be tolerated.

"Textbooks don't need to be replaced every year. Schools can use textbooks for quite some time in many of their classes."

It isn't just the age of the textbooks, it's the number--several students are forced to share each one, and there aren't enough copies to be taken home. I don't know where the hell people's outrage has gone, but in an age where the affluent are poncing around in platinum pinky rings and buying houses for each season, the idea that American children have to crowd around tattered copies of books they can't even take home is beyond intolerable.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 3, 2007 08:11 AM

Private schools just do a better job at education.

Having seen my kids in both environments in an affluent DC suburb, I feel awful that everyone who can even barely afford it wants to move their kids out of Public Schools, thereby creating what I think will eventually be a societal class division that did not exist previously.

Some reasons that hurl themselves at me right now:

(1) Class-size, not so much due to illegals (which is a problem) as the fact that some people, for example racially/religiously motivated people, are breeding like hell.

(2) Low standards. The private schools even at the elementary school level are working with texts a year or more ahead of the public schools.
In addition, the teacher has to cope with a wide range of capability in the classroom, whereas the private school would hold the kid back if they couldn't make the standard.

(3) The stupid idea of allowing kids to wear anything they like to school. If you have a ten plus year old girl that means an extra hour of thinking about outfits daily. Wearing a uniform is an excellent idea. Why the heck don't public schools use a uniform? Whoever came up with the alternative that allows kids to dress like Britney Spears or Snoop Dogg or whatever his name is?

Incidentally here is a little story. An acquiantance who was an absolute far-right decrier of big government had a kid with Downs a few years back. Now the guy uses every avenue offered to him by the public school system including one-on-one education sessions, special bus pick-up etc. for his kid. It's funny how all his anti-government rhetoric has now toned down. This kid, a lovely little child, probably costs the county 5-6 times what any other kid costs.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 3, 2007 10:14 AM

Squidward says: There is almost no worthier purpose for the money than education, and no sector it could be spent on that would have more direct benefits for society.

Absolutely, except let's spend more on teachers and tools for them to teach then on administration. Let's cut admin costs and siphon for teachers that teach. Let's require teachers to have a degree in what they teach.

He continues: That is why the best systems in America are also the best-funded

I can't resist this.. The US Government is better funded than any in the world...but you say it isn't better...hmmmm

That is why the best systems in America are also the best-funded; a common-sense fact...

Hmmm, the War on Terrorism is well funded, so it's the best, right?

Ok, back on target: Don't try to blame the consequences of conservative policy on the teachers it targeted.

The problem is that the funding that the liberals throw at education isn't targeted to teachers as Reagan tried to do. A majority of the funding is for administration and union costs.

Squiddie says: Administration is a fixed cost, which means it takes up a larger percentage of a budget when you cut it. Instead of cutting the budget, cut the costs of administration by reducing it. Another section of Rand's blog has you saying that hospitals need to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the modern technological age...schools too.

Squiddie: You keep ignoring the facts, and I keep having to remind you--America had the undisputed best school system in the world until the budget cuts started.

I'll remind you again that the budget cuts were originally targeted to reduce enormous spending. The unions and administrations of schools twisted the directive to reduce teacher's pay and keep their pay relatively the same as it had been previously. Not the fault of budget cutting, the fault of greedy administrators and union organizers.

Squiddie: Reagan's approach wasn't novel

Really? When did other leaders cut massive spending in the effort to control waste?

Squidward: Everything about conservative ideology is opposed to universal education--it gets in the way of religious fanaticism.

I will agree that seperation of curch and school is missing in the conservative doctrine, but I'm a conservative that is not even close to a religious fanatic.

it gets in the way of military recruiting

Really? We had the largest volunteer military on the face of the earth, most of which were serving to further their education.

, it redistributes wealth from the rich to the middle-class and poor

Unless, of course, the spending is siphoned to union leaders and administrators first, therefore feeding the upper middle class...

, and it reinforces social mobility that undermines the political power of the wealthy.

Which Ted Kennedy wields with lordly might, though his continued bill writing for education spending is not helping to fix anything other than the bank accounts of his friends.

Squiddie: In other words, poor and/or challenged students are dumped into garbage heap schools with even less funding and less support...

Unless their parents use a voucher to send them to a better school. This forces the bad school to improve. Competition is a motivating factor.

Squiddie: You do realize that the point of public school is to *guarantee* all children a quality education, don't you?

And as you have vociferously pointed out, it ain't working. So let's fix it.

Squiddie: Some parent already doesn't have time to help their child while education is free and doesn't require them to do anything

I have five children and I'm not even middle class yet, but I know you have to MAKE time. The left is always upset that parents don't get involved enough, yet when they try to get involved, the system says they're not doing things right.

Squiddie: "If it works, use it" is the motto of poverty.

Its the motto of efficiency too.

Squidward: Maybe it sounds trivial to be outraged that children are forced to learn in glorified cargo crates because their district, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, can't afford to have actual buildings added, but it illustrates conditions that cannot be tolerated.

Not trivial, just stupid. My stepson goes to one class in a trailer during the day and he's getting straight A's in that class. If the trailer is comfortable, the students can learn the same as inside a building. Students are in school to go to class...even in a trailer.

And finally: several students are forced to share each one

Imagine if administration budgets were cut a bit and the money was spent on books....wow, amazing.

Posted by Mac at April 3, 2007 11:09 AM

Toast: "The stupid idea of allowing kids to wear anything they like to school."

I rather think it makes perfect sense. If we start down the road of removing cultural distractions, then we might as well reinstitute race and gender segregation. The purpose of education is not just downloading information, it's learning how to relate to other people and operate in society. We want schools that turn out balanced, healthy people, not docile soldier ants with an implicit faith in authority. If for nothing else, Americans are still admired for our creativity and independence.

Toast: "It's funny how all his anti-government rhetoric has now toned down."

That makes sense perfect sense too. Right-wingers are emotional thinkers, and can't understand anything until it hits them in the gut. Have Ann Coulter tortured for a few minutes, and she'd become a spokeswoman for Amnesty International--assuming they'd let her in the building.

Mac: "Let's cut admin costs and siphon for teachers that teach. Let's require teachers to have a degree in what they teach."

The first part depends what you mean by "admin costs" and "teachers that teach," but the second part is a good idea. Unfortunately, budget cuts mean most districts can't afford to insist on teachers with specific degrees, and especially not in math and science.

"The US Government is better funded than any in the world...but you say it isn't better"

The US government is dozens of separate organizations with totally unrelated functions, and specific functions with more funding are generally better at what they do. There are scale factors that can introduce either efficiencies or inefficiencies, requiring subdivision or merger, and of course better leadership improves things, but all else being equal funding is more or less a linear variable in performance.

"Hmmm, the War on Terrorism is well funded"

The "War on Terrorism" is a rhetorical expression. Military contractors are well-funded, and they're quite good at what they do. Unfortunately, what they do usually has nothing to do with defense, and often doesn't even involve delivering products or services.

"The problem is that the funding that the liberals throw at education isn't targeted to teachers as Reagan tried to do."

And how did he try to do that?

"I'll remind you again that the budget cuts were originally targeted to reduce enormous spending."

Why would you want to reduce spending on the world's best school system?

"When did other leaders cut massive spending in the effort to control waste?"

Reagan was completely indifferent to waste, as his approach to the Pentagon proved; what he was after was redistributing the wealth back to the corporate private sector that had been moved into the public sector over previous decades. I.e., he wanted a return to an earlier status quo like under Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover.

"I'm a conservative that is not even close to a religious fanatic."

Nor am I saying you are. Religious fanaticism is a subset of conservatism, not a synonym, but conservatives in general tend to have a much higher regard for religion in society. Nuances aside, the less educated a people are, the more social power is attached to religious institutions.

"most of which were serving to further their education."

Which they wouldn't have to do if college grants hadn't been gutted, or if their K-12 had been good enough to make scholarships realistic.

"Unless, of course, the spending is siphoned to union leaders and administrators first"

Or cut to fuel the junk bond market.

"Which Ted Kennedy wields with lordly might"

If you have such a problem with Kennedy, why do you keep cutting his taxes?

"My stepson goes to one class in a trailer during the day and he's getting straight A's in that class."

Then he would also get straight A's learning in a tent classroom, and that would be even cheaper. Come to think of it, why not just have classes taught out in the open when weather permits? No need for chairs or desks either, just have them sit cross-legged in the dirt and work on clipboards. That would allow quite a tax cut, and the more affluent parents could use it to offset the cost of sending their kids to private schools with real infrastructure.

"Unless their parents use a voucher to send them to a better school."

So the point of your suggestion is really to force children of low-income parents out of the public school system. You would make their schools worse, then offer them vouchers for a *chance*, a mere possibility, of finding a good replacement that accepts poorly educated children who may have disciplinary problems, and that doesn't charge more than what the voucher provides. Meanwhile the money "saved" on public education would, no doubt, find its way into yet another tax cut for people whose children are already in private schools.

"This forces the bad school to improve."

That isn't even the way it works in business, let alone the public sector. Competition improves a sector by *eliminating* inefficient organizations and firing underperformers, but if you're suggesting we do that with schools then you're proposing the end of public education, as I've already stated to be the goal of conservatism.

"And as you have vociferously pointed out, it ain't working."

A return to real funding commitment is the beginning of a solution, but nobody thinks it's anywhere close to a complete one.

"I have five children and I'm not even middle class yet, but I know you have to MAKE time."

And you can make a lot more of it when the community supports its children.

"Squiddie: ["If it works, use it" is the motto of poverty.]
Its the motto of efficiency too."

Poverty is quite efficient, at least in the short-run.

"Imagine if administration budgets were cut a bit and the money was spent on books"

Administration budgets didn't increase, the rest of the budget decreased so rich people could have tax cuts. Your obsession with blaming file clerks and secretaries is ridiculous.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 4, 2007 12:51 AM

Brian says: We want schools that turn out balanced, healthy people, not docile soldier ants with an implicit faith in authority.

True, and uniforms help by taking one destractor away that allows interaction between the kiddos without the peer pressure of fashion.

Right-wingers are emotional thinkers...

And lefties aren't? The touchy-feely, the planet's going to die from Global Warming any minute! Oh My God!!!? Sure, I can see that.

Brian says: Unfortunately, budget cuts mean most districts can't afford to insist on teachers with specific degrees, and especially not in math and science.

So, how do we fix it? I think competition is an excellent idea. I also think that teachers who excel (get their degrees) should be paid more. That is a simple fix. It may take time, but its a fix.

He avoids: The "War on Terrorism" is a rhetorical expression. Military contractors are well-funded...

Okay then, The active efforts by our government and military in the Iraq theater are very well funded. Does that make them better?

On Reagan: And how did he try to do that?

The budget cuts to the Education System were proposed to stop the astronomical spending. The purpose was to redistribute funding through the school system and eliminate the free spending. The legislation did exactly that. When Reagan signed it, that was the purpose. The outcome was to reduce the funding to all schools, but the redistribution never happened as it was supposed to. The funding left the federal level and reached the district level, where teachers got pay cuts and many administrative positions' pay cuts were not nearly as deep.

Squiddie: Why would you want to reduce spending on the world's best school system?

If the money's not being spent on the education of children, what should it be spent on?

Squiddie: Reagan was completely indifferent to waste

Incorrect. He recognized that the Education System was overfunded and spending was out of control. He recognized waste and tried to fix it.

Squid: Religious fanaticism is a subset of conservatism

No it is not. Conservatism is a political philosophy. Several "Conservatives" that follow the philosophy are not religious fanatics. There are a subset of "Conservatives" that are, just as there are those "Liberals" that profess their religious ideas as well.

Squiddie: Which they wouldn't have to do if college grants hadn't been gutted, or if their K-12 had been good enough to make scholarships realistic.

They didn't HAVE to the military to go to college. Most WANTED to go into the military for advanced education. All volunteer force with scholling. Gotta love that idea.

Squiddie: If you have such a problem with Kennedy, why do you keep cutting his taxes?

We keep cutting his taxes because he is a member of the United States. Tax cuts build industry and create jobs. My problem with Kennedy is that the only solution to education he ever tries is more funding, which goes to the unions that re-elect him. Smart, if you're only concerned with being re-elected. Bad, if you're concerned at all about a failing system. I don't think Kennedy gives a darn if education fails, as long as he gets his votes.

Brian says: Come to think of it, why not just have classes taught out in the open when weather permits?

There's a childish argument. The trailers are comfortable and efficient. Why is this a problem?

Squiddie: So the point of your suggestion is really to force children of low-income parents out of the public school system.

No, its to force schools to improve themselves so that parents will keep their kids there. Supply and demand. If the school supplies good education, parents will demand it for their children. It will work just fine. Besides, the "throw money at it" fix hasn't worked, why not try something new?

Squid: Competition improves a sector by *eliminating* inefficient organizations and firing underperformers

Incorrect. Underachievers eliminate themselves. Thos businesses that achieve and then strive for more usually thrive. Schools that achieve will thrive as more students flock to them. Schools that are underachieving will eliminate themselves. The students will by then already be in more successful schools anyway. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will work.

Brian: A return to real funding commitment is the beginning of a solution.

I respectfully disagree. There was a large budget increase for Education in Bush's first term. I will agree fully that money helps too, but let's find a way to get the funding to those schools that deserve it. A school that is not meeting the standards won't achieve them from money alone. So, if you force them to change and strive to achieve, the students benefit.

Squiddie: Administration budgets didn't increase, the rest of the budget decreased so rich people could have tax cuts.

Thanks for pointing out what I've been telling you. Teacher pay got cut and admin budgeting was hardly touched. Who TEACHES the children? Pay the TEACHERS. See? A conservative that wants to PAY teachers! Wow.

Posted by Mac at April 4, 2007 11:34 AM

"uniforms help by taking one destractor away that allows interaction between the kiddos without the peer pressure of fashion."

Peer pressure is an obstacle to be overcome in healthy development, not a problem that parents and teachers should spare children from experiencing. Also, with few exceptions, carefully managed prep-school environments turn out aristocrats and status quo operators, not innovators, entrepreneurs, and revolutionary thinkers. That's not an argument for radical structurelessness, but we should really avoid falling victim to the order = success fallacy.

"And lefties aren't? The touchy-feely, the planet's going to die from Global Warming any minute!"

Leftists are sentimental, not emotional. It's the difference between crying at a sad part in a movie and crying (or lashing out at the cashier) because your popcorn doesn't taste good. Furthermore, the unlivability scenarios of global warming, while unlikely given strong action, are still nontrivially probable, so responding to them is quite rational.

"So, how do we fix it?"

Restore funding to (adjusted) levels from before the cuts began, then discuss the structural remedies that will begin to heal the damage.

"I think competition is an excellent idea."

I believe I've explained why it isn't. The purpose of a market is to make profit, not serve its customers, and they do the latter only in order to do the former. If the products or services they provide are inferior, their profits will be affected and that will either force improvement or eliminate the firm.

But the (immediate) purpose of any public institution is to accomplish the service it provides, meaning that its failure to do so, and failure to improve, has already demonstrated its resource or structural incapacity. The analogy would be a private business that has already lost massive amounts of profit, but has not improved despite years of underperformance, and the result would eventually be exit from the market. A public school, however, cannot be eliminated if we hold true to the concept of public education because some children will always have no better option, so there is not and cannot be any organizational imperative. Improvement can only come from new funding and/or restructuring, and that in turn can only come from a political decision to do so.

"I also think that teachers who excel (get their degrees) should be paid more."

With restored funding, we could afford to require degrees.

"That is a simple fix. It may take time, but its a fix."

I think not. Underperforming schools would fall to some bare minimum state like wage laborers in a laissez-faire system, the average school would fall substantially and survive by forcing students into brutal Asian-type competition just for a basic education, and the best districts (read: wealthiest) would have resources rivaling universities.

At the bottom would be concentrated all teachers who can't teach, all students who have trouble learning or were underserved earlier in their education, all incompetent or clock-punching administrators, and you would have created a system for reinforcing a perpetual underclass.

"The active efforts by our government and military in the Iraq theater are very well funded. Does that make them better?"

Specific functions that actually receive the funding are better at what they do than they would be otherwise.

"If the money's not being spent on the education of children, what should it be spent on?"

It was being spent on the education of children. Administration is a fixed cost of public education, so budget cuts would have to come from the classrooom--that's obvious now, and it was obvious then. Reagan didn't care, he was dogmatically antagonistic to domestic spending.

"He recognized that the Education System was overfunded and spending was out of control."

It was his ideological conviction. The state of education didn't matter to him, and he had no particular idea of where funding should be, he just concluded that it was too high by definition. Taxpayer money belonged in the pockets of military contractors or taxpayers themselves, not teaching the children of "welfare queens" how to read.

Moreover, you didn't respond to my point about the Pentagon: If Reagan cared about waste, whence the $2,000 toilet seats, 10-figure vaporware systems, and contractor-welfare programs that defined his administration?

"Conservatism is a political philosophy."

It is a set of values, not specific ideas or beliefs.

"They didn't HAVE to the military to go to college."

Some do, and it's a lot cheaper and easier to recruit people with lowered expectations. Just ask any recruiter if they get better pickings hanging around upscale shopping malls or inner city basketball courts.

"Tax cuts build industry and create jobs."

Education develops the minds capable of building industries, creating jobs, creating employees to work those jobs, professionals in the service sector, and all else besides. It is a priori of all significant economic, technological, and social progress.

"My problem with Kennedy is that the only solution to education he ever tries is more funding"

It seems to work in Massachusetts. Are the children inherently more gifted, the teachers more dedicated, the winds of fortune more favorable, or is there a common-sense relationship under most conditions between funding and performance?

"The trailers are comfortable and efficient. Why is this a problem?"

Couldn't a tent and some nice plastic sling chairs with swing-arm tables be comfortable and efficient? My problem with the scenario is that people don't resort to these cheap kluges unless they lack for money, and there IS a psychological and social effect to learning in a trailer or going to a school that's ugly. Aesthetics is not a luxury when the service being provided involves thinking, concentration, memory, and personal identification with the material. School should be a magical and adventurous place for children, not freaking Auschwitz with desks.

"Supply and demand."

That's not the way public institutions operate, and you can't force them to operate that way no matter what you do. Public schools don't exist to win more students the way companies exist to win more customers, they exist as a fixed service available to all who choose to use it.

"Schools that are underachieving will eliminate themselves."

No, they would just be filled with underachieving students who couldn't get into a better school, but doing progressively worse as resources are drained away.

"but let's find a way to get the funding to those schools that deserve it."

The children all deserve it, regardless of what school they're attending. If schools fail to use the money properly, then deal with the school's structural issues instead of punishing its students by trying to make them leave with further budget cuts.

"Teacher pay got cut and admin budgeting was hardly touched."

Once again, because administration in a public institution is a fixed cost. Don't blame reality for Reagan ignoring it.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 07:45 AM

Squidward says: Once again, because administration in a public institution is a fixed cost.

If its fixed, how come more is spent on it now than last year? How come the administrative positions have a markedly higher salary than a teacher?

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 11:21 AM

"If its fixed, how come more is spent on it now than last year?"

Per student, it probably isn't. But any number of plausible explanations exist if it did increase, the most prominent of which would be implementing new state and federal testing requirements.

"How come the administrative positions have a markedly higher salary than a teacher?"

My guess is because their responsibilities are broader, require management of a lot more people and resources, or involve specialized expertise. A teacher has to manage students; a principal has to manage teachers, students, budgets, parents, and district politics. Management skillsets can easily demand higher compensation than teaching can.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 01:28 PM

Brian said: A teacher has to manage students; a principal has to manage teachers, students, budgets, parents, and district politics. Management skillsets can easily demand higher compensation than teaching can.

That's exactly my point. The skill set of management is nice, and does deserve compensation. However, the lasting impact on the kids comes from the teachers and they deserve far more compensation than they currently get.

There's plenty of funding in the system as well, but I believe it needs to be redirected.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 03:15 PM

"However, the lasting impact on the kids comes from the teachers and they deserve far more compensation than they currently get."

Then you need to either tax and spend, borrow and spend, or get the money by cutting something else. Since we've already discussed why administration costs are fixed, and there are so many more teachers than bureaucrats, it isn't profitable to keep insisting on that as the source.

But if you're opposed to raising taxes or borrowing, I'd suggest looking to the world's fattest, most wasteful, most bloatedly corpulent institution for forage--the United States Department of Defense. All it takes is a brief circuit through the Pentagon hallways wearing a Contractor badge and one emerges covered in solid gold barnacles, pockets stuffed with $10,000 bearer bonds, and sighing in post-coital bliss.

Personally, I would love to go through the DoD budget with a giant black novelty marker the size of a baseball bat: By the end of it, not only would the Pentagon be the Triangle, but so much money would be available that we could have a balanced budget while massively increasing spending on other priorities. Just imagine five ***BILLION*** going to COTS contracts, twenty ***BILLION*** in additional NASA spending, fifty ***BILLION*** to education, and the only price would be listening to Rush Limbaugh accuse you of endangering national security for cancelling the nuclear skateboard program.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 5, 2007 06:01 PM

Brian says: Then you need to either tax and spend, borrow and spend, or get the money by cutting something else.

YES! Cut the money being diverted away from teachers by subverting the union's take. Reduce the funding to Administration.

Since we've already discussed why administration costs are fixed, and there are so many more teachers than bureaucrats, it isn't profitable to keep insisting on that as the source.

Real simple here. If admin costs are fixed. Then unfix them. When a budget bill is passed for education funding, move those funds directly to the teachers and give the bare minimum to keep administration working. Don't let the unins get one penny.

As for tax and spend...that's liberal territory. Raise taxes and spend what they get. In today's capital environment, cutting taxes is a proven method to spur the economy and generate more than the government gets from raising taxes.

Posted by Mac at April 5, 2007 08:37 PM

"Cut the money being diverted away from teachers by subverting the union's take."

I hope you realize how Orwellian this statement is.

"Reduce the funding to Administration."

What aspects of administration, specifically?

"If admin costs are fixed. Then unfix them."

Fixed means they result from inherent requirements. While fat is probable in any public institution, a lot of it is an unavoidable consequence of being public, and that which you could trim without damaging effectiveness is unlikely to amount to much.

Let's imagine you've reduced the principal's salary by $5,000 per year: Assuming the diminished advantages over the private sector don't leave the job vacant, you've just added $7 per pupil per YEAR to an average-sized high school, IF you spend none of it on teachers.

"When a budget bill is passed for education funding, move those funds directly to the teachers and give the bare minimum to keep administration working."

Reduced funding inflicts damage on a marginal basis, so what exactly is "bare minimum"? Have students show up on the first day, put their name in a hat, and assign classes by lottery? Leave the budget money on the front desk and let it diffuse organically into the system?

"As for tax and spend...that's liberal territory."

Taxes are how public institutions are funded.

"Raise taxes and spend what they get."

If current funds are insufficient, and additional funding is unavailable, then taxes should be raised according to the marginal utility of each dollar taxed at each given bracket. I.e., increases begin from the top down.

"In today's capital environment, cutting taxes is a proven method to spur the economy"

That depends on which taxes are cut, how much they're cut, what they were before they were cut, what spending priorities are sacrificed to pay for the cut, and prevailing market conditions at the time of the cut. The same considerations apply to tax increases, and it is nonsensical to ideologically label either inherently beneficial or destructive.

To make the statement that reducing any and all taxes, by any rate or amount, from any rate or amount, at any opportunity cost, under any and all conditions is to state that the economy would be maximally productive with zero taxes, which is obviously not the case. Such a faith-based approach to fiscal policy was the motivation for Reagan's domestic spending cuts, and in this context directly caused the collapse of the world's best school system.

"and generate more than the government gets from raising taxes."

This is based on two rather simple fallacies:

(1)Supporters of a tax cut place no time limit on their attributions, so whether the growth happens six months or six years after the fact, they refer to the most recent tax cut as the cause. If taxes were increased rather than decreased, they "failed to stop" the growth caused by the most recent tax cut before it, however long ago it was.

(2)While an expanded economy *years later* may provide greater revenues than those immediately gained from a tax increase, even a somewhat smaller amount of economic growth would yield exactly the same revenues under the higher rates, and if the same or greater growth occurred the higher rates would mean even higher revenues. To accept your position, one must assume that ANY given tax increase will slow growth, and ANY given tax reduction will increase it, neither of which are in evidence. In other words, you're begging the question, assuming as if by definition that slower growth will occur with higher taxes, which is precisely what is being debated.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 6, 2007 04:06 AM

Post a comment