In this election it seems that the candidates are trying more to be like each other and there isn't much emphasis on their differences. For example, Kerry is trying to portray himself more like Bush in regards to terrorism (except for regarding Iraq), i.e. tough on terror. And tonight I noticed that Bush was trying to seem like more of an environmentalist.
Bush did a good job of explaining how he was removing troops from some places, which lessened the effect of Kerry's accusation that troops are overextended.
At one point, Kerry emphasized the importance of intelligence and Bush acutely responded with the fact that Kerry had voted against intelligence funding increases.
Bush did well by saying that he did what he felt was wright, despite it being unpopular, and implied that Kerry would make wrong decisions in order to be popular.
Kerry made a good point when he said that the budget had been balanced before Bush was in office. However, I think that this issue deserves a little more discussion. I like a balanced budget, right now a large portion, I think about 15%, of our tax dollars are paying interest on the national debt. I've been hard on Bush in the past for spending too much money, but when he took office the economy was slowing down. I don't know if Bush has been doing this intentionally, but he has had a very expansionist fiscal policy. Presidents are graded so harshly on the economy, when managing the economy isn't really one of the more important parts of the president's job. Perhaps Bush calculated that the political problems presented by cutting taxes and raising spending and thus increasing the deficit were not as bad as letting the slowing economy turn into a second-term-precluding depression. So, perhaps Bush doesn't deserve as much blame there as he is getting.
One interesting thing is that neither candidate answered Charles Gibson with how they would halve the deficit in four years. When asked about the deficit, Bush seemed not to consider it important and he sort of explained that spending and low taxes were necessary to stimulate the economy. At one point Bush said that non-discretionary government spending is now increasing by 1% as opposed to 15% before Bush took office, but I have difficulty believing that.
I was pleased to hear John Kerry promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. However, George Bush 41 didn't keep his promise not to raise taxes, so how can we trust Kerry to keep his? (sarcasm) Still, as a low taxes kind of guy, I'm pleased to hear that Kerry would not raise taxes on most Americans. I think it's interesting that Bush's response to this is mostly to imply that Kerry is a liar. It seems that more than once, Bush's response was to imply that Kerry is a liar or that Kerry is simply incapable of leading. Kerry is doing a good job of keeping Bush on the defensive.
I think that Kerry did a good job about hammering on Bush's tax cut for the wealthy. I'm a low-taxes guy, but cutting taxes for the wealthy, despite the fact that our richest Americans are also the biggest philanthropists and investors, continues to hurt Bush, I wonder if he regrets cutting taxes for the wealthy.
At one point Kerry referenced a bill that he is sponsoring with Senator John McCain, and I must say that a man who mentions John McCain earns points with me. I think Kerry has done a very good job of aligning himself with many well-respected individuals. Kerry has compared himself to Reagan, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and said that he has support from many military minds. I think Kerry is doing a good job of showing himself to not be too liberal.
It seemed to me that for the most part Bush got tougher questions than Kerry.
I thought it was interesting that when Bush was asked about the USA PATRIOT Act and the rights that it infringes upon, Bush didn't even admit that it infringes on any rights. Bush could have come up with some examples from the PATRIOT Act that might be interpreted as abrogating some rights and then explain why he thinks that the rights are not infringed upon, but he didn't even do that, he simply said that the bill doesn't infringe upon any rights and that the man who posed the question was wrong.
I was disappointed in Kerry's comments on abortion. He implied that being pro-lifers are using their religions to govern: "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith." He also implied that abortion is provided for by the Constitution, which seems like an activist belief, if you ask me, I'd like to know where the Constitution permits abortion. Bush helped himself by emphasizing the importance of adoption as an alternative to abortion.
Kerry pointed out that this election is very important because this president might get to select a new justice to the Supreme Court. I thought Bush did well by saying that he would only select strict constructionist judges and that the legistlature is for making laws and the judicial branch is for interpreting them. He made some good examples of judicial activism that has harmed society, though there are plenty of good examples of beneficial judicial activism. I thought Kerry's response was interesting when he also said that he would only appoint strict constructionists. I'm generally more of a fan of conservative judges, but if both of these men will only appoint strict constructionists, then Bush loses his advantage here too.
Near the end Bush was asked what were his three biggest mistakes, which was a tough question that I thought could have been a good opportunity for him to perhaps apologize to the American people and show that he has learned from his mistakes, but he failed miserably. Iraq has not gone well enough and Bush couldn't apologize for or even mention any mistakes? Using the reasoning that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction wasn't a mistake? Letting Abu Gharib happen wasn't a mistake? Losing ground in Iraq to insurgents wasn't a mistake? Not securing the borders in Iraq wasn't a mistake? Not providing armor to the troops wasn't a mistake? Bush had the perfect opportunity to level with the American people, who know that he has made mistakes, but he stubbornly abstains from admitting fault, apologizing, or even acknowledging that mistakes have occurred. Kerry raises the point that Bush didn't provide enough suppliments to the army and Bush's only response is that Kerry didn't vote to fund the army? That point is definitely worth raising, but the president is ultimately responsible for ensuring that his troops are well supplied and well protected and Bush has nothing to say about his failures, absolutely nothing, he acts as if he's not even at fault, as if nothing has gone wrong, and he expects us to believe him? Incredible.
Still, I think both candidates did well, but I think that Kerry did better, at least to me. I'm more comfortable with Kerry as a war-time leader now, though I'm not persuaded by his plan to bring all-important allies, such as military powerhouses France and Germany, to a mystically-going-to-"change the dynamics"-on-the-ground-in-Iraq summit. Bush has not really been able to do much to help himself, he seems oblivious to or unconcerned with problems with his presidency and issues that dissenters have raised, he has spent a lot of time on the defensive, and his attacks on Kerry have been generally weak and vague, e.g. Kerry flip-flops, Kerry is unfit to lead, Kerry will not be able to keep his promises.
your desktop backgrounds have met with success. i am currently using your backgrounds at work and at home, brayn [sic] is using one at work and deuce is using one at least at home, and i think dac is using one at school. well done.That's surprising, satisfying, and good to know. I added four new backgrounds to my Backgrounds Page and I hope to continue adding more periodically.-ace
THE Sudanese government yesterday accepted an ultimatum from Tony Blair to clean up its act in Darfur or face the wrath of the international community....
What he had told the Sudanese - not just told, demanded, he said later - was that they must accept his five-point plan for the region.
The Sudanese, for their part, told him that they accepted his plan - though the meeting had been behind closed doors. The Sudanese have given such assurances before. They told Kofi Annan that they had put an end to the violence, only for their own troops to be caught attacking villages again as soon as the UN Secretary General left the country. Some reports from refugees suggest that the attacks continued even while he was in the country.
Mr Blair was aware of their track record, he said. What was important now was not that they accepted their obligations, but that they implemented them.
well, I understand the point of view of the union members. it seems a little unfair for non-unioners who pay no union dues to always reap the benefits fought for by the unions, so they at least want to do the jobs reserved for them. I understand that you're not in a position to join the union, but do try to understand why they exist and why they may respond that way over seemingly small issues. they may well have been the force that fought for the water cooler in the first place.Well, you're right, and I'm not blaming them, but the whole situation is just annoying.dac
SADDAM HUSSEIN believed he could avoid the Iraq war with a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France, according to devastating documents released last night.I don't think this would pass the global test.
Today's example: Our non-union department has a water cooler for Ozarka water bottles and we ran out. We used to have water bottles at the bottom of the stairs that we could simply take upstairs when we needed them (which is okay), but now the water bottles are far away, so we need to go pick them up. After being asked to, I brought over some water bottles for our department. I brought the water back and a union guy told me that a grievance has been filed because I was doing their job. I'm not in trouble and I won't get in trouble because I was simply doing what I was told, but it's just kind of annoying that we have this problem. The problem of "you can't do this because it's a union thing" comes up somewhat frequently and is something I don't like.
The fundamental rationale for the war - the threat from Saddam's existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction - was wrong. Period. In the conduct of the war, it is equally indisputable that the administration simply didn't anticipate the insurgency we now face, and because of that, is struggling to rescue the effort from becoming a dangerous mess. Period. So the question becomes: how can an administration be re-elected after so patently misjudging the two most important aspects of the central issue in front of us? It may end up as simple as that. Maybe, in fact, it should end up as simple as that.
Andrew Sullivan also asks why the US didn't secure the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam supposedly had:
Returning to Bremer. One of his early complaints was insufficient troop numbers to stop looting, restore order and protect unguarded weapon sites. Leave everything aside and focus on the latter. The war was launched because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The main fear was that these weapons might be transferred to terrorists who could use them against us. And yet in the invasion, there was little or no effort to secure these sites! And there was no effort to seal the borders to prevent their being exported, or purloined by terrorists. Why? I've long pondered this, but Bremer's gaffe brings it back into focus. Why would you launch a war that failed in its very planning to avoid the disaster that you went to war to prevent? I don't understand. We were lucky in retrospect that Saddam didn't have any WMDs. The way this war has been run, it would have actually increased the chances of such weapons getting to America via terrorists rather than reduced them. At least, that seems to me to be the logical inference. Am I somehow wrong? Why did the administration leave weapons sites unguarded for so long? Why did they not send enough troops to secure the borders? I'm still baffled. And rattled. Can anyone explain?
Good questions.
you didn't post the best parts of my response.I didn't post all of your comment because it was somewhat long and I only responded to part of your comment.anyway:
"Would these children get a better education by staying in their underperforming school while it attempts to improve, or would it be better for these children to be able to go to a private school that could provide them with a better education immediately?"
it would be better for the general welfare, now and for our posterity, for the public school system to be an equitable and high-performing institution. right now we are a long way from that. and I don't mean just in terms of student performance, although that is the ultimate goal - I mean in terms of proper and appropriate funding for educational resources on a basis that strives for *high* quality and *equality* of all public schools in America. I never said anything about teachers needing higher salaries, although they do, so thanks for making that argument for me.
"How can students be encouraged to learn? How can parents be encouraged to encourage their children to learn?"
if you had posted the best parts of my first response, your readers would have heard me address these questions. I've repeatedly said that the government cannot "make" students learn, nor can it "make" parents care. that is not its purpose. its purpose, in terms of education, is not to somehow supplement or encourage the private education sector, but rather to operate a responsible and high-performing nation-wide public schooling system. it's as simple as that. blaming students and parents for their own failure is good. blaming students and parents for the failures of the government is not good. a lot of the problem lies with inequitable funding and underfunding, which is a government issue and one that needs to be addressed through the government. the other issues are social issues and must be addressed through society. government subsidizing of and outsourcing of its responsibilities to the private sector is not the answer for how best to educate our population. if you think private education would be more fair than public education on a large scale, you are sorely mistaken. the problems involved in turning over all education to specifically religious or profit-oriented organizations should go without saying and should be frightening to all of us.
dac
What matters to me is that children are provided a high-quality education without a directly proportional relationship between wealth and educational quality. It seems that you believe that the government's job is to operate its own schools, but I think the government's job is to provide a quality education, regardless of whether it uses its own schools or private schools. The most important issue is education, not a theoretical support of a larger government. The government has shown itself incapable of providing quality education to all of its students, therefore these students should be able to go to a school that can educate them better. If the private schools are worse, then the students can go back to public schools, they have a choice, and they're not stuck in the same underperforming public school.
We both agree that the best schools cannot teach students that don't want to learn, and that many students are ignorant because of their disinterest in learning. It would be interesting to know how much of the ignorance of students is because of their school and how much is because of their lack of effort. School choice and private schools won't make that student want to learn, but neither will better funded and higher quality public schools. You say that these societal problems must be addressed through society. I think that the culture of ignorance is the greatest problem that students have, not their schools, and this culture will not fix itself anytime soon. If the government is serious about educating all of its students equally, then maybe it should do something to promote education and not only provide it. I don't know what the government could or should do, but fixing schools won't fix the whole problem.
FURTHERMORE, here we've arrived at another of the wonderful hypocricies of modern conservatism. they want to spend as little money on social programs (such as public education) but they want to pay for kids to go to private school?I can't speak for all modern conservatives, but I'll tell you what I think. I don't want to spend as little money as possible on social programs, but I understand that the government can't fix everything and shouldn't have to. I believe that the government does have a duty to give its citizens a good education to begin their lives. As I understand it, currently the government licenses private schools and requires students to attend some kind of school, public or private. If not, for a voucher system to work on a large scale, the government would need to ensure or at least test the quality of private schools. As for dooming ourselves to long-term structural problems, I don't think so, I think that's a bit of a stretch, but maybe I am not understanding your train of thought.are they going to pay full tuition for private school for everyone who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it? forever? just shell out the money without having any corresponding say over standards and curriculums?
or once the public school system is a hollow shell, will they only start paying for *some* people's private education? and then how will it be able to legislate on what grades a child must legally attend? since they would have no control over each individual private school's requirements and essentially no public school system worth attending, wouldn't this lead to increased dropout rates and lack of attendance? even as early as the elementary level? would we be dooming ourselves to long-term structural problems like hightened illiteracy, hightened crime rates, hightened poverty rates, and more class polarization? does this open the door wider for systemic racism and other such problems?
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
dac
Previous post here.
The United Nations and the United States expressed concern that it could take until early next year to deploy a 4,000-strong African Union force to Sudan's conflict-ridden Darfur region and called for much speedier action.
what the government CAN and MUST do is make certain that public schools, especially the inner-city ones such as those found in Queens and Brooklyn, are well-funded and taught by qualified teachers. funding and resources should not be tied to performance and should not be drained away through private school vouchers. the government happens to be the most transparent and efficient way of providing public schools (i.e. government-run institutions that serve the general welfare) with the money, staff, and resources they need...I disagree with you on how to best educate children. Would these children get a better education by staying in their underperforming school while it attempts to improve, or would it be better for these children to be able to go to a private school that could provide them with a better education immediately? Also, let us not overestimate the importance of proper funding. Certainly higher teaching salaries will attract more qualified teachers, but funding will not fix things. I agree though, the government should operate better schools, but it seems that a lot of student low performance is out of the government's hands. How can students be encouraged to learn? How can parents be encouraged to encourage their children to learn?dac
My response to comments about this post here. Previous post here.
When you think of Dehumanization what pops into youre head? I' now the first thing you notes is human and then De . . and then zation. If I where you I would have no clue on what I means. Well people in the Halacousd had the same thing. I problem, something the didin't understand. When they were taken away from there Homes they did, not know why, or what was going on, later on they had a clue. But did not listen. finaly it was clear to them. They were being DehumanizationedSo, who's to blame? Liberals will probably blame the schools and conservatives will probably blame the parents or students. I side more with the conservative viewpoint here, regardless of how good the schools are, kids won't learn if they don't want to.
My response to comments about this post here.
The Dallas Cowboys have agreed to make a "good faith" effort to ensure participation by minority- and women-owned businesses in every aspect of the team's proposed stadium, according to a fair-share agreement signed Friday by Mayor Robert Cluck.The more interesting provisions of the agreement between the Cowboys and Arlington's mayor include:
Minimum goals for participation by minorities in several categories, such as construction, 25 percent; architectural and engineering, 25 percent; professional services, 37 percent; and goods, 18 percent.and
$100,000 to be paid by the Cowboys for an on-site consultant and minority-business coordinator to make sure the terms of the agreement are followed and to report quarterly to the task force and the city.
So, in order to prevent discrimination, the Cowboys are going to try to give minorities a certain percentage of the work (implying that minority contractors wouldn't deserve the work if it weren't for these goals) and the Cowboys are going to pay someone $100,000 to verify that no discrimination takes place.
Thank goodness for stipulations like these, without them, wealthy white men like the owner of the Dallas Cowboys football team, Jerry Jones, wouldn't let any of their money go to people who aren't also white. Well, wait, no, he pays millions of dollars per year to his football players, many of whom are not white. Well, I guess times have changed, I'm so glad that the days in which the color of a person's skin would make a difference in whether they can get a job are past us and we are now able to look past differences in skin color. Oh, wait, scratch that too.
to access linked article:
user name: bogususer@mailinator.com
password: userbogus
UPDATE:
no, fortunately the days are behind us when the only people of non-white ethnicities who could earn significant amounts of money were professional athletes.unfortunately, the day has not yet come when these sorts of efforts are not needed. kudos to the cowboys. although the new stadium is a colossal waste of money, at least its construction will be contracted with the problems of race in the business world in mind.
dac
But what about the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community, don't you think the Cowboys are leaving them out? Also, another minority group in Texas that can experience discrimination is the Democratic Party. The Cowboys need to make sure that some of their contracts not only go to non-whites, but also to homosexuals and Democrats.
I'd like the downtown fort worth one please. those are really good.I didn't forget, some pictures I've taken are now available as backgrounds on my new page. I might add more in the future, depending on demand.dac
