~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, July 11, 2003
Various
Yes, I am aware that the below post is an intemperate diatribe.
(Update: It's looking like a light blogging day. I have some things I want to write about but I'm too sleepy to focus ~ essentially, I'm hopped up on decongestants. I'm not nearly as sick as Steven sounds like, so don't send any flowers or nothin'. In the meantime, they keep inventing new rights so that they can claim they're "denied" in Bush's Amerikkka:
On behalf of poor people, Maureen Taylor is furious. She thinks every American should be guaranteed basic local phone service. . .
M-kay. . ).
Have you ever noticed that the "rights" some emphasize are really obligations placed on others? I mean, everyone does have a right to a phone in the sense that they are not prevented by the government from going out and getting phone service. The "right" at issue here though is for it to be paid for by someone else; I have a right to a phone on your dime.
Or, lets put it this way: we all have the right to freedom of speech, but we don't all own the NYT. blogger is free - but unreliable. Certainly for such a basic right as speech, we should be guaranteed reliable access to the means to promote our views.
And we do have access to reliable means to promote our views (I paid good money to move off blogger and have this site set up, and I pay a monthly fee for server space and bandwidth. Neither the government nor any other agency prevents me from accessing these means). But that is far different from expressing it in terms of "I should be guaranteed access which others should pay for, not me".
Well, I guess I did find a way to blog one of the subjects I wanted to, after all.
As for the "issues" people have which are discussed in the article, a lot of those can be solved by the simple expedient of borrowing a friend or neighbor's phone in urgent cases. What? Aint got none? (Friends or neighbors, that is)?
On the "More Soldiers" issue, Trent Telenko has another post worth reading on the subject. The fact is, it's potentially disastrous that we're not working to rectify this right now. Actually, it's probably beyond that point; we should have started expanding the Army's force structure two years ago so it would be at the level we need it to be now.
The really highly annoying thing is I'm tempted to think people didn't do it not because they didn't think this far ahead but because they would have suffered politically for acting on thinking that far ahead. But then that leads to the question of why they aren't pushing this issue through the budget process hard, now. Do they really think we're going to be able to make do, for an indefinite period of time, with the forces we have now?
If so, then they're making what I would call an "all in" gamble - pushing all their chips into the pot and if they're wrong, they're out.
As for me, though, I still firmly believe we could return to the personnel levels of the late '80s/early '90s without recourse to a draft by making a few changes, changes that IMO have merit on their own, which will once again make military service more attractive to the sort of person inclined to volunteer, and which did volunteer in sufficient numbers for the significantly larger military of that period to meet its needs. Unless and until I'm convinced that we need a lot more than that (which is what a general draft would provide and I for one do not believe in drafts with too many exemptions or in draft lotteries or in drafts for such short periods as to make the pool smaller but which also makes the service period too short to be of much value).
Joe Katzman points to a good argument by Michael Totten for going into Liberia. Again, my point has always been not that there are no good reasons for doing so, but that we have finite means; they're either stretched or they're not. We cannot do everything and if we want to be able to do more than our current means will allow, then we should {have been} building up those means to carry things out. And no, I do not think doing Liberia in a way that is worth doing will mean a commitment of only a few months - to do it right, we'll have to make a serious commitment there, too, not a quickie in and out oh-I-feel-better, and nothing like the Franco-UN "effort" in the Congo.
It's easy to say we should send the troops. It's much more difficult to make the materiel commitment to have sufficient forces on hand so that they can be deployed, without exhausting the force. I think we're actually beyond pegged now, especially considering that not only do we have the deployments but we need to keep forces in reserve for contingencies.
Additional: Saddam - Osama link evidence keeps getting stronger, but the usual suspects will continue to deny there is any evidence whatsoever.
By the way, just so things don't get confused, the changes I'm talking about have little or nothing to do with whether gay people are serving in the military. In fact, I, myself, consider that a non-factor.
It's mostly cultural - of which I concede it's arguable that issue is a part of - the efforts to make military culture more like the civilian culture over the last period in order to appeal more broadly or integrate the military culture with the society it serves, and all the related arguments that went with it.
The thing is, the reason none of that really drew more recruits - and indeed recruiting went down - is that the type of people inclined to join the military, serve in the military, are not looking for it to be like the rest of society. This, in fact, is why the Marines - which have been most resistant to these changes - have had the least, not the most, difficult time filling their ranks.
Sure, these changes attract some who otherwise wouldn't have joined. But they lose more people than they attract. And no, these changes cannot be boiled down to whether there are gays, or even women, in the military. There are women - and gays IMO - who are suited to and inclined towards a military life. That's not what I'm talking about. After all, there are female Marines and I'd bet there are gay Marines. But they are Marines, in the Marine culture; "accomodation" is not made to the degree that the Marines are expected to adapt to those who serve in their ranks, those who serve in their ranks are expected to adapt to what it means to serve as a Marine.
When last we wrote in reference to Mort Kondracke, it was a bit of genial ribbing.
I've been following Mort's work since the mid '80s when he was one of the regulars on the McLaughlin Group, and pretty much my favorite (sometimes Jack Germond gave him a run for his money, but generally it was Mort). Kondracke certainly had a point of view, but he stayed on the right side of decency, did not see those who disagreed as automatically villainous or stupid, and in general took the high rather than the low road. Sincerity and earnestness were and remained the best way to characterize his style of debate.
Though I'm no longer a Liberal, I retained my respect for Mort Kondracke and, indeed, this blog carries the influence, in style at least, of Mr. Kondracke.
However, on last night's Special Report, Mort stooped to a level that is beneath contempt; he went for the lowest blow imaginable in an American context in order to score cheap political points. He referred to uranium claim (which was based, in the SotU speech, on British intelligence, which Blair stands by to this day. Is Blair lying too? C'mon Mort - don't be a pus; if you're going to go with this, go all the way) as a Watergate and started throwing around terms like "uraniumgate" and saying that we're waiting for a "John Dean" to step forward with a "smoking gun".
If he had left it at that, I would have retained some respect for him. But then in his next chance to speak, he went on in contemptible fashion, emulating the style of Tom Daschle, denying that he said what he had just said; he claimed he "didn't compare" this with Watergate. Pure, unadulterated bovine fecal matter.
This oozes smarm. It takes a long time to build up a good reputation as a forthright person - but all that can be blown in an instant. I have nothing but contempt for this, coming from someone I expect better from. That it came from Mort makes it all the more damning - not of Bush, but of Kondracke, because I know he knows better.
As for this entire matter, Kondracke is smart enough and well read enough to know that there is no serious evidence that Bush knew the information was false (again, Blair maintains that it was not false, and Mort is set to have impeachment hearings start in the House; "what did Bush know and when did he know it?"); if this is going to be the standard of evidence, then we should just as easily conclude, using the same standard, that Clinton knew in advance that the aspirin factory in Sudan was nothing more than an aspirin factory, but ordered it bombed anyhow (rather than having faulty or insufficient intelligence). For once, words fail me in expressing the utter contempt and disgust I feel for Mr. Kondracke at this moment. If there are questions, there are questions. But to stoop to the level that Morton did on this issue, when there's no supporting evidence, and then denying that he even did so, brings upon him disrepute. The word is stronger than that, but I try to keep this "clean". My feelings about Mort at the moment are summed up in the lyrics of this song, though.
(Oh, and as for the State Dept. Official who was dispatched to Niger and said he went around asking people "hey, are you all violating sanctions and sending Uranium to Saddam" and they answered "no", well, ok; but, again, the British claim their intel is based on different sources than the documents that prompted us to send that dude over. State Dept. officials tend to be a bit credulous when it comes to what other people say, and more distrusting of our government. But that's not even at issue here, unless and until Tony Blair "admits" that he's been lying, and he told Bush before the speech that the British intel was bogus but they kept the line anyhow.)
Regarding the Student! post, A. D. writes, via e-mail:
Another reason more needs to be done about this unbalanced leftist tilt in the educational system, is because this is the generation that will, or will not, fight this war. Schools are supposed to be about educating
citizens of our country, not indoctrinating them toward one view or the
other.
True. In fact, I'm going to address this type of thing when I get Part IV of my "America's 21st Century Foreign Policy" series (Part I and Part II and Part III) written; the degree to which malfunctioning internal institutions (ones run by and large by people who lack confidence in the American system and thus hamper our ability to succeed in places like Iraq and beyond- and by succeed I mean more than winning the "major combat action" phase of things, but winning the aftermath. But more on that later).
A. D. makes what I think is a good point and one that anyone who wants us to succeed will understand is a grave matter indeed.
I read your analysis of a recall and as a California resident I have respectfully take you to task for regurgitating the notion of "living with mistakes". About 3 weeks ago I would have agreed with you that this would set a bad precedents. I voted for Simon against Davis although I thought Simon was a horrific choice. But what changed my mind into becoming pro-recall was watching a news conference and witnessing Davis' habitual,continual, finger pointing of blame for California's woes. Even to this day it is still some how, some one else's fault for foolishly signing inflated power contracts, which he is now feverishly trying to get out from. At this very moment he is spending more time trying to fund raise to fight the recall, than governing this state. Most pro-recall people have the logic of: "If I hired someone with a 4 year contract to do a job and the guy refuses to work, I should be able to fire him." The guys a dud pure and simple. Arizona ridded themselves of Eve Mecham for being a do-nothing dud, why can't California have that right? I think I detect more than a little schadenfreude in those that proscribe Californians to grin and bear it and accept this awful governor.
1) If you detected schadenfreude in my post, it wasn't intended. I admit that's a sensation I indulge in, but not in this case. Looking at things selfishly, if California is in wrack and ruin in 2004, how does that help the rest of the country's economic prospects? It doesn't. It cripples them (especially with another major region, NYC, also being governed. . .poorly). I know that local effects - especially in major areas (and California is hardly a minor part of the country) - will have national ramifications.
Buh-bye Bush (and as much as I've been criticizing him lately, I look at the alternatives and find them. . .wanting. All would be much worse, especially on the foreign policy front. (On the other hand, when you're done reading this post, go read this column; if it doesn't make you rend your hair in frustration, you're probably Bob kerry).
2) "Davis' habitual, continual finger pointing of blame for California's woes" - again, a character feature of his that was known to all of California's electorate in November of 2002. I don't think that after re-electing him, when he had spent his entire first term behaving that way is grounds for recall.
3) If Arizona re-elected Eve Mecham knowing that Mecham was a dud, then recalled Mecham, then I abhor that, too, and this is exactly what I mean in bad precedents (then I will conceded that California won't be creating a bad precedent, just illustrating the problem with setting such precedents in the first place; "X recalled Y over Z, so why can't we?" becomes a rationale). (I admit I'm not well enough versed on the Mecham thing to really adress it. I will add that even if the Arizona voters had just elected Mecham to a first term and then recalled Mecham for dudleyness before the term was up, I'm not sure I like that, either. It's slightly less bad - a lot of these things are matters of good judgement rather than bright-line, and I conceed that's the case with this Davis recall, too; I'm just explaining how I reached my judgement and why I think the reasons against recalling him are stronger than the reasons for recalling him).
4) I do not agree that the hiring of a contractor and electing someone to a public office are analogous. Look at it this way: should the first President Bush (41) have been "fired" (impeached or recalled in mid-term, not voted out at the end of that term) when he broke his "contract" (NO NEW TAXES)? Grey Davis is "working" - he's performing the functions of Governor (badly, to be sure; but, again, California knew the labor habits of this "contractor" when they "hired" him last fall).
The analogy is inapt; we recognize a distinction between, say, elected office and appointed office (a Secretary of whatever can be fired for cause; a elected official can be removed from office prior to the end of his or her term only for very significant violations of public trust); indeed, there is a reason we have terms and I am a bit of a Burkean on these things.
5) Am I anti-New Jersey? I do look at this the same way; Jersey's voters (Jersey's Democratic voters - but the recall of Davis also does have partisan elements - nominated Torricelli. Then they thought the better of it "hey, look, we nominated a crook! Yah, we knew he was a crook when we nominated him, but we thought it wouldn't matter. Now that we see it will matter, we want a do-over". I didn't like that, it left a bad taste in my mouth (and the mouths of lots of people). I'm not quite as upset over this (look, legally, the voters of California can recall whoever they want on any grounds - or none - the only requirement is sufficient signatures to generate a recall ballot, followed by sufficient votes. But there are "understood" limits, IMO).
I donno. Maybe he can be convinced to resign (I know; doubtful. The guy clings to power with Clintonian tenacity. It's the only skill he has).
I don't mean to sound harsh. If the guy was governing my State, I'd be fit to be tied, but I hope that I'd reach the same conclusion that I have (I do understand one of the points you're making in re. "shadenfreude" is that it's easy for a non-Californian to tell you all to just suck it up and live with it. We only experience indirect consequences). But in the end I think that your mail supports what I said in my first post: ya'll bought a pig in a poke, knowing it was a pig in a poke (I mean, it's the same pig ya lived with for four years already). I kinda think you're stuck with it.
I also worry about what happens down the road and think that you should too, if you plan on staying in California. I likewise think that, from your perspective, you would see value in Californians as a whole re-learning what it's like to live in a one-party-dominated, Democrat-run State (this is it, and it isn't pretty); they got used to, as voters, electing only Democrats to statewide office and then, as voters, blaming every difficulty on forces elsewhere (Davis-like themselves), and re-electing the same chummers who brought them the problems they have in the first place. So now those problems are reaching hypertrophy already (and Democratic control of all levers of State government has only been a few years).
Letting the rest of the California electorate off the hook means never having to say they're sorry - by which I mean, they will learn nothing and forget nothing from this experience. So the pattern will repeat.
I sincerely don't think I'm giving Californians bad (shadenfreude-driven) advice here, but rather advice that I think is good, that everyone will be better off in the end (rather than having me point and laugh as things get worse) if this recall fails. Just as I don't think it was in New Jersey's (or anyone's) best interest to let the ballot-and-switch go on.
Now, I might be wrong. I'm willing to accept that possibility. But I hope I've at least convinced you that I am not taking this position because I enjoy seeing California sink into the status of a third-world banana republic (with all the economic, fiscal, and governmental problems that implies). Quite the contrary.
I certainly think Grey Davis is a chump and in many ways it couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow. Smugly incompetent at everything but campaigning, Davis has brought wrack and ruin to California and, rather than alleviating what would have been a difficult period for the state, has created catastrophe.
But this recall does not sit well with me. Why? I don't think incompetence and fecklessness are valid reasons to recall a officeholder. Now, y es, technically the voters can use any grounds they want to recall someone. But traditionally, this has not been an accepted reason. I find myself - not exactly agreeing, but understanding - the position of those who are saying this is a circumvention of the democratic process.
What have California's voters learned about Davis that they didn't know about him when they re-elected him last fall? Oh, and don't tell me things like "they've learned that the situation is worse than they were told, blah blah blah" - that is a detail or example regarding Davis' nature, but not a newly discovered character defect. If he is unfit for office because of his manipulations, sleight-of-hand deceptiveness, and the like, then he was unfit in November, too (this is not something most voters are just now discovering - or at least not something they should only be becoming aware of now. This was knowable before the November 2002 elections and any voter who was unaware had only them self to blame).
Yes, as a Governor, Grey Davis blows chunklets; he reeks of suckitude. As a governor, he's craptacular. Not new, and not a valid reason for a recall. The voters of California picked him over the other candidates on the ballot, even knowing he is a bad governor. That's their decision, if they made a mistake they'll have to live with it (we all live with their mistake).
The likely consequences of having a recall succeed over the reasons this one might would, in the long run, be very bad. Just as I was fit to be tied (and remain so) with the New Jersey Candidate Switch as an affront to the democratic process, I come to the same conclusion about this.
I also think it's important that the electorate of California live with the consequences of the decision they made last fall. Driving Davis out of office, like driving the goat from the community, may make some feel absolved of the responsibility they bear (they'll then elect Ahnold or DiFi and feel ok).
If the voters of California remove Davis when he really hasn't done anything that warrants a recall (recall is traditionally to remove someone from office for really bad behavior, not simple incompetence), they will have erred. See, I'm not a populist (nor am I an elitist); I think the majority can be wrong, can make mistakes (they are quite often quicker to admit mistakes than Our Betters, such as the mandarinate that runs the EU, would be in similar situations). Democracy does mean that if a mistake is made, it is more likely it will be made by those who have to live with the consequences (rather than simply imposed on people by a distant authority, who, since that authority does not have to live with the consequences themselves most of the time - those in power have ways of avoiding things like that - they are less likely to mind those consequences. Again, I refer to the EU as an example, where counterproductive things are often done and let stand regardless of the difficulties they impose on actual people, because the enlightened feel that it is the "right" or "socially just" or "environmental" or whatever thing to do, and they have the means to avoid the burdens of regulation and costs that others bear as a result). Democracy means that the people re-elected a governor who had proven himself unable to govern well. Their choice.
Now they live with it. Perhaps next time they will be more careful. But not if there is an easy out for them; then they are putting themselves in a position akin to those of the mandarinate - insulating themselves from the consequences of poor decisions. This is not a good precedent, and not an example of the democratic process at its best.
(However, I did warn all those people who were cackling gleefully over slipping The Lout in exchange for The Torch that things like that would be responded to in kind and they couldn't expect to be the only people to do things like that. They laughed, careless of the consequences of their condoning such malfeasance, so they reap what they sew. To them, the just reply to whatever complaints they may have about this is: "get over it. Move on" - the same they gave to those who cautioned against ballot switching and other methods of circumventing the electorial process that they have engaged in).
This is a companion piece to parts of this post. It could be one of any number of High School's in America:
SMHS history courses routinely omitted essential components of U.S. history-everything from the pioneers to the Second Amendment-but spent an inordinate amount of time condemning this nation's past. My own U.S. history teacher instructed us that our nation's past fears about Communism were unjustified; in fact, that capitalism had been a sinister force in the world. The Mexican-American War (or, as it was referred to in class, the "North American invasion") was labeled a barbaric undertaking. We were told that through America's history as a "terrorist nation," she brought upon herself the sinister attacks of 9/11. Teachers compared this country to the worst regimes in world history while excusing the atrocities of its enemies.
Government class served up more of the same. To illustrate their point, teachers handed out articles conveying a wide array of leftist perspectives, but no article from a conservative point-of-view ever balanced these sentiments. Students (myself included) were informed that the U.S. could be termed a "fascist" country. Some teachers actively encouraged students to protest against the war in Iraq. One teacher even called George W. Bush "the son of the devil," and another claimed he was "not a good Christian," because of his efforts in Iraq.
Except for the fact that someone did something about it, and didn't back down in the face of attempted intimidation (which - lets be fair, is nothing like what students face in Iran. But that begs the question about why more people here don't stand up against Leftist indoctrination in schools. The worst that they might do is lower your grade for political reasons, threaten to mark down your "permanent record" - and we all know how important that is, right? - or send you to the Sensitivity Re-Education Gulag; but lets face it, as appalling as such behavior is, none of those fates are anywhere near as dire as what students in Iran face; see the below post. This doesn't mean that it's not a big deal and nothing should be done; quite the contrary - concern for physical safety is not a factor that could hold people back, so what does? Indifference? Even people who may not share my particular concerns will, almost without exception, acknowledge that our education system is appalling and then say that something should be done about it, and emphasize how much we all value education. Well? Deeds, not words, show what our real priorities are. Again: we're spending more per pupil now than at any time in American history and unarguably getting worse results. So it isn't money; it's indifference, masked by expressions of grave concern with no follow through. Students - too many students - aren't taught what they need to know in school and why is that? Because the teachers focus on. . .other things. But lets lot put all the blame on teachers - no sir. Lets face it: there is no excuse for a child who lives in a home where the parent(s) can read, add, subtract, multiply, and divide to grow up - no excuse for a child in such a household to grow up and not be able to do those things; too many parents don't do their part, don't do whatever they can to help advance their own child's education. Other priorities take up their time. But of course they will tell you, in a grave and serious voice, how concerned they are with the quality of their child's education and what they are or aren't learning in school. Too many people have subcontracted out the raising of their children. Also - look, lets face it, the materiel conditions of even the poorest of Americans has improved vastly over the last one, two, three, four, and five decades; if you don't believe me, you should look at old pictures or newsreels of the sort of squalor - shacks, shanties, hovels without running water or plumbing, that people lived in and raised their children in back then; poverty isn't the reason either. But I'm digressing). Back to the article:
A scientific poll I conducted as part of a statistics class paints clearly demonstrates the SMHS student body's gross lack of political knowledge and demonstrates the damage of that deficiency. During the Iraqi war, I found that students who did not know that Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait were four times more likely NOT to support the war than students who knew both pieces of information-which they often did not. Maybe if more teachers actually discussed the crimes of Hussein instead of making fun of George W. Bush (almost 60 percent of respondents said their teachers were guilty of that), more students would support their country during a time of war. Sadly, many students seemed thoroughly deterred from patriotism. The poll found that over 60 percent of students would not even participate in the flag salute.
This poll produced other noteworthy-and alarming-results, which seem to correlate the politics of the students with the ideas forced upon them by their teachers. For example, two-thirds of students do not believe President Bush is smart enough to run the country. Sixty percent believe President Bush's reason for going to war with Iraq was oil. More than half felt too many law-abiding Americans had guns in the home (and nearly none had even a vague idea of how often lawful Americans used guns defensively); 80 percent claimed we spend too little on health care, while almost 60 percent claimed we spend to much money on the military. More than 1/3 of the kids were not even willing to say they were proud to be American, and a monumental 40 percent felt that America itself was unjust. There is, however, one "patriotic duty" most of these students will be participating in: 94 percent of students indicated that they would be registering to vote within the next few years.
It was after my school's response to the 9/11 attacks that I decided to become involved. During that dreadful time of national tragedy, anti-Americanism had spread all over the school like a rash. The co-principal broadcasted his doubts about the morality of the air strikes against the Taliban to the entire school via the PA system. One teacher even dragged the American flag across the floor-as we were sending off brave young men to risk their lives for it.
I try to remember that every time some hard-Leftist tries to imply that "everyone", themselves included, were onboard for the war against the Taliban, because they were connected to al-Queda - they just dissent over the "hegemonic" war "against Iraq".
We need to remember that this is a crock - they were making the same arguments regarding the war to topple the Taliban as they did with respect to the toppling of Saddam, and no one should let them get away with slipping that down the memory hole.
But I digress, again. The interesting thing about this article is that it's written by someone who isn't just complaining the way we complain about the weather (and then treating this situation as if it were a force of nature; something that can be gripped about but which cannot be fought anymore than we can hold back a hurricane). He took action:
Soon I was writing articles for the local press and internet news sites. I set-up many meetings with the administration, only to discover that the bureaucrats themselves were part of the problem. . .
Despite the leftists' objections, I began gathering indisputable evidence of bias and placed pressure on the school. In turn, they continued to receive calls and letters asking for a stop to the indoctrination.Whenever I met with administrators, they complained about the negative PR they held me responsible for. However, I kept repeating the same message: In order to receive a positive review, you will need to take positive action. This certainly did not endear me to the administrators, and I became something of a persona non grata. Once, after an article came out that they were particularly unhappy about, I was brought into the office with a security escort. The superintendent even made veiled threats of reprisal against me (instead of dealing with the "root causes" of the negative PR, their own rampant bias). But because my criticisms were accurate - and because I always strove to act with decorum and respect - this threat turned out to be hollow. Soon the intense pressure on the school caused their resistance to give way, and changes started to take hold. . .
Gray Davis' budget crisis resulted in large statewide funding cuts in education. Our high school placed a tax increase initiative on the ballot to generate some revenue. To the districts tremendous surprise, it failed, and right away I was blamed. At this time, I met with the superintendent and principal and carefully outlined the basic changes I felt needed to be implemented. I let them know this election was a wakeup call, demonstrating public disapproval, and that any positive steps the school should take would be dutifully reported on the radio.
Next, came the miraculous. First, the principal wrote a memo instructing all teachers to discuss the war in Iraq in an even-handed way. This was followed by an unprecedented and groundbreaking directive issued by the superintendent, fulfilling the key request of my campaign: it required every teacher to maintain a politically neutral environment. The principal personally backed this policy up by reiterating the new directive on the PA system. She even took independent action to further rebuke teachers who
overstepped these bounds.
The initial battle had been won.
As I had assured the principal and Superintendent, I reported these changes on Larry Elder's show. Their next tax initiative passed, by the margin of 508 votes. This means the school got what it wanted, but that public pressure will remain, keeping them on the straight-and-narrow. I also hope patriotic members of the faculty will become more vocal. At the end of the year I discovered many teachers were behind me, but they were not open about it, fearing reprimand from the leftist establishment. . .
Read the whole article (I've ellipse out a lot of details for space and other reasons).
The one thing I do wonder about is whether pressure will remain, whether, now that this student has graduated, others will follow his lead. Again, to return to where I began this post, our biggest problem is indifference, apathy, failure to back up our claims of valuing education and abhorring PC classrooms with concrete, resolute - but civil (remember, this guy did not trash the school, disrupt things, or engage in other misbehavior) - action.
Re. "Poverty" digression - some will retort that real wages peaked in '73, and by the method that is used to measure wages, that is technically true.
However, it's an open secret that this method is flawed and the CPI overstates inflation by anywhere from half a percent to a full percent per year.
'73 is the year wages "peaked" for an interesting reason; it's also, not coincidentally, the year Social Security increases and other programs became tied to the "COLA"- thus it became politically expedient to have the CPI inflated, because that led to higher COLAs.
But over the years it's become more and more difficult to mask the fact that this overstatement of inflation is going on. Empirical observation shows the degree to which living standards have increased, not decreased, for Americans as a whole and poor Americans as well (again, if you don't believe me, then you don't know the conditions that many poor Americans lived in back in '73 and earlier, and the degree to which even pockets of dire poverty have been alleviated by comparison. And middle class and better off Americans are doing even better).
It's statistically true that real wages peaked in '73, but it's factually untrue.
God has smiled upon you, this day,
The fate of a nation, in your hands.
And bless-ed be the children,
who fight with all our bravery,
'til only the righteous stand.
They may cut your dick in half,
and serve it to a pig,
and though it hurts you laugh,
and you dance a dickless jig!
But that's the way it goes,
in War you get shat upon!
Though you die, 'La Resistance' lives on.
The song of course is from SP:BLU (script; interestingly, even Satan didn't believe Saddam would change, but apparently many of our more Leftish Democrats are more gullible).
People living in Free Market Democracies that loathe those societies often believe they're doing a brave thing when they protest and dissent. But songs like the above, which are humor in our experience, are lived experience for dissidents in many countries, including Iran.
Ya'll remember Neil, right? The anti-reform embodiment of Status Quo Labour in the '80s?
He's the EU's "administrative reform" Commissioner?!?
The man who spent his political life opposing all forms of reform?
The EU in sum: Old Labour, unreformed Socialists (if decent. I mean, Neil does stand out in that he's a decent person) guiding Europe's common "open" market.
*giggle*
Ever notice how politicians who get rejected by actual voters end up being EU Commissioners? I mean, there's Neil, who's claim to fame is he was Thatcher's victim in successive elections, and from the Conservative Party, Tory-Socialist Chris Patten, who is known for his failed attempt to become CP Leader.
One personal anecdote: during the run-up to Neil's Last Stand (his defeat by Major in Kinnock's last election as Labour Leader), for some reason (I've forgotten why) I sent an inquiry to the Labour Party regarding their policy with respects to the Turkish occupation on Cyprus. This was when it seemed they were likely to win (everyone, at the time, expected Major would go down. His win probably, in the end, put the Tories where they are now, as Neil's defeat generated New Labour).
In response they sent a fairly hefty packet - xeroxed stuff regarding their policy position. Now, I was (and am) in the States and was inquiring as a private citizen (no pretense that this was for a news article or anything); mailing the packet to me probably cost them 2 pounds (~$3) and I appreciate the response (which was quick, too) and haven't forgotten it. Thatcher & Kinnock's sparing matches across the dispatch box remain memorable even today. Hague vs. Blair had its moments, but the Thatcher - Kinnock exchanges were classics.
So I just listened to a BBC World News Service radio report on Iran and the student movement (Julian Marshal was the anchor that hour).
It focused on how much better things are in Iran since the revolution, on reformers in the Iranian parliament, and the emphasis was on the young people just wanting change to go faster than was reasonable. They did mention some arrests, but the focus was on how much freer everyone is in Iran these days. From the BBC report, one would have absolutely no understanding of the reasons behind the protests, except that they're ungrateful that progress isn't going faster than it is (but how things have improved! - great emphasis was placed on a split between the young people who just don't get it and the older people who were around in the early days of the revolution and understand just how good things are in Iran now).
And one wonders why Europeans might have a different viewpoint on the Middle East than we do. Well, opinions are shaped by the information one has - or doesn't have.
So, what does the mainstream media do when news is slow? They report on polls.
Ok, so here's a Zogby Poll on people's opinions regarding prescription drugs and a government program to provide them.
The first thing I'll note is that if the results of this poll were reversed, we would be hearing a lot more about it than we are. The second is that it is fairly clear that there is no public ground swell pushing for a prescription drug program.
82% of all voters surveyed and 67% of seniors agree that “seniors should have the option of picking a private health plan approved by the Medicare program to provide their health benefits
The complex drug benefit being debated in the Senate was described to those with drug coverage to ask if it would be better than the coverage they have now. 74% of seniors said no, and only 16% said it would be better.
Of those seniors without drug coverage, only 42% said they would be likely to buy the new policy.
Less than half of those who don't have coverage are even interested in a government plan. That says a lot right there.
66% are worried that “a government-provided prescription drug benefit might mean that some people could lose their private health care coverage and become more dependent on government funding.”
Of course they're right. Of course that is one reason why certain people have been pushing this issue for about a decade or so. The latter part of the sentence is something they want - and it's a "down payment" on national(ized) health care.
78% said “if the government gets into the business of providing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare…the government would eventually control what drugs are produced and developed.”
Pretty savy of them; the government probably won't control it directly, but will certainly distort the whole thing via a series of price control mechanisms.
54% of all of those surveyed would trust a private health plan to provide medical and drug benefits while only 34% say they would be more secure knowing the government was in charge. Seniors over age 65 were almost evenly split, with 43% picking government and 42%, private plans.
78% said that “health plans should be able to negotiate with government to get a fair price” while 14% said “the government should decide how much to pay plans.”
But what do you know will happen? If not immediately then soon after.
51% overall believe that choices of drugs would be limited “if the government were to provide a Medicare drug benefit;” 43% are confident their doctor would still be able to choose the right drug for them. 58% of seniors, however, believe their doctors would be in charge of choices.
77% overall and 80% of seniors say that “seniors should have to pay something for their prescription drugs to keep the Medicare program from going broke and so the next generation of seniors does not become a greater burden on future taxpayers.” Only 18% overall and 15% of seniors said that they should be entitled to all the drugs they need, “even if it puts serious financial strains on the Medicare program.”
If Congress must choose, 54% of voters said it’s more important to pass “a more generous prescription drug benefit for low-income seniors who don’t have any coverage now” than a plan that “provides some drug coverage for everyone, regardless of income” (42%).
56% of seniors said it was more important to have protection from larger drug bills while 37% said it was more important to have help with “everyday expected drug costs.”
Seniors also were asked if they would support a plan that provided $600 on a drug card for lower income seniors, with protection from large drug expenses starting at $2,000. 75% supported such a plan.
Sounds closer to the (original) Bush plan that was demagogued as being "not what the people want".
Voters were evenly split – 44% to 44% -- over whether the federal government or private health plans “would do a better job of getting lower prices on prescription drugs for seniors.”
49% said it is “more important for drug companies to continue to do research on new cures for the future” while 40% said it is “more important for drug companies to lower the costs of the drugs they already have developed.”
Overall, it's clear that there is no real push for this huge program to be added to the fiscal burden. At least no push from the grassroots. So what's behind all this?
Washington politics. This is - almost entirely - a issue ginned-up by a political party interested in increasing the scope of government influence (especially in the area of health care), affiliated lobbyists, and willing accomplices in the media (who run segments featuring some old grandmother who's name was provided to them by the DLC or a lobbying group). However, even after years of attempting to whip up a public bandwagon behind this turkey, the public at large still isn't buying it.
So why then are the Republicans buying it? Mainly, I suspect, because they feel they've been victimized too often by "Mediscare" tactics and want to deprive the Democrats of the issue - out of fear (mainly) that if they don't, then somehow, someway, it will bite them if they don't.
Some Democrats who understand the real situation, people like Ted Kennedy (D-Ma), cannot believe their good fortune: they understand that if nothing gets passed, the issue will probably fizzle (as it did at the polls in the last couple elections, when the Dems tried to wave this bloody shirt to score votes from seniors, and it didn't work). But the Republicans are actually willing to pass something anyhow. It's almost too perfect: any aspect of what is passed that the public dislikes can be blamed on Bush and the Republicans, while the program itself will take on a momentum of its own (Kennedy, having spent a long time in Congress, fully understands this dynamic and his argument for supporting the current Bill and passing it is based on this insight).
They will then, in future years, push for "reforms" that will "fix the flaws in the original bill" - expanding the scope of the program and deepening government control over it, putting in place price controls similar to those that exist in other countries, and the like. There will, naturally, continue to be problems (mostly caused by rather than solved by the so-called "reforms" but that will be cloudy enough) but for decades these will be blamed on the original "flawed" bill and used as an excuse for further "reforms" of this kind (thus, also, as with Nixon's doubling of Social Security in '72 and tying future increases to the consumer price index, Republicans will get blame and no credit for supporting expanded benefits; indeed, in many ways, Bush's domestic policies increasingly resemble those of Nixon, not Reagan's, or even his father's. Well, ok; on tax matters he's more in the Reagan-JFK tradition. I'll give him that; but other than that it's been programs, steel tariffs, and farm bills. Which really makes it laughable when some Liberal goes on and on about how Bush is gutting the budget; puh-leeze. Spending's gone up faster than under Clinton, the vast majority of it not defense related).
Oh, and as for the rest of us, it'll cost us all hundreds of billions in the next decade (almost certainly several times more than the projected cost, as is typical with programs such as this), and add trillions to the "unfunded liabilities" we're passing on to the future. All on account of what? The insatiable demands of seniors? Not really.
All due to the political maneuverings and "strategery" of both parties.
Maybe you've met the type or at least encountered it somehow. It's a phenomenon that's usually easier to identify in a form you disagree with. But there are people out there - seemingly more of them all the time - who don't seem to believe in democratic discourse. You just get the sense, listening to them or reading what they write that for them defeating the other side at the polls isn't enough. It's that the other side's position is an outrage, indecent, tainted, and illegitimate.
Now, in some cases that is true. Perhaps someday in a future post we can look at the sort of positions that IMO are right out in a democratic republic such as ours. But one gets the sense from more and more people that for them that category is pretty broad and essentially includes everyone who does not share their general world view or philosophical perspective (over which there might be factions and disagreements to be sure). Quite often such people are very good polemicists and really fire-up like minded people, but are reviled on the other side of the political spectrum.
In the end, as far as reaching people and convincing people, they're rather ineffective. Oh, sure, they'll be able to point to this or that testimonial, someone who had "their eyes opened" when they "heard the truth for the first time" from this or that speaker or writer, and they can stir people to passionate activism on behalf of The Cause (which, once stripped of everything else, boils down to destroying the other side). But for most people, especially in the broad middle, such antics tend to be a big turn off and do more to discredit rather than advance the ideas the person supposedly expounds and embodies.
I've come over time to the conclusion that Ann Coulter is one such person. Sure, she sometimes makes good points - points no one else makes. But in painting with an overbroad brush, fast and loose, often more propagandist than debater, she's one of those people who does more to harm than to help the side she's on.
This is because there are, IMO clearly, instances of the phenomenon she highlights (and Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky aren't wrong about everything all the time either. So?); but by tarring the entire other side in such an extreme fashion, she makes it all too easy for people to simply dismiss cases that have merit with a handwave. Just like her new idol, Tailgunner Joe (IMO, and just IMO, I think I'll take William Buckley's word on McCarthy over Ann's. But that's just me). In a few years whenever someone mentions that this or that person on the Left (or this or that Liberal) did always seem to identify more with the Soviet position on, say, arms control and relations, and was more understanding of Soviet-backed governments than American allies, people will be able to say "oh, now you're sounding like Coulter" and wave it off rather than discussing the merits.
The usual excuse thrown up by the other side is that "well, they have X. Have you ever heard Y? It's about time they got some of their own medicine?" - arguments of that kind have their place, but I don't think this is one of them. As I said in the second paragraph, there are some things that should be right out, and for my part I'll stand with Ron Radosh:
"I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."
One of the strengths of the conservative movement as a whole is that, unlike too many on the Left (and too many Liberals as well), we don't tend to make icons out of our extremist-propagandists; at least not in the end (Ann is in a pretty small group of conservatives in looking back on Joe McCarthy with fondness. Ironically, in that I think she finds herself in Pat Buchanan's company; I say ironically because he and Ann are kindred spirits in methods, if not specific positions on all issues).
Perhaps some day she'll find herself exiled to the void (MSNBC, the void: six of one, half a dozen of another), too. Even though in some ways I like her - just as in some ways I like Pat (and I liked parts of "Roger & Me", too) - that day can't come too soon in my non-humble opinion.
