Therapy"
jexster,
cont.....
Nonresponse bias means those who responded may not necessarily reflect the views of those who did not participate. The response rate was ?? percent. (I'm disappointed not to see the response rate...maybe this fellow also has senior moments.) The results were adjusted slightly to compensate for demographic differences between poll respondents and the Ohio electorate as a whole. Although precautions are taken to ensure the sample reflects the demographic characteristics of the Ohio electorate, precise estimates for total possible error cannot be calculated. The poll was designed, conducted and financed by The Dispatch.
Darrel Rowland Dispatch Public Affairs Editor ...................................
40206. jexster - 9/5/2000 12:56:00 PM
This is the crucial and unanswered question Robt. Their answer is a concession that the ME of 2% does not account for measurement error
Like all polls, the Dispatch Poll is subject to possible error other than sampling error. Other sources of error can be unintentional bias in the wording of questions, data entry error or nonresponse bias.
The very first poll, the Reader's Digest polls of the 30's have the same problem essentially although their non-response bias and selection bias was compounded because of the readership angle.
40207. EricCartman - 9/5/2000 12:56:55 PM
Cellar:
So the media aren't doing their job. What else is new? Besides, regardless of the issue, readers/viewers are very rarely asked to any critical thinking about those issues. Generally it's just "here's the deal, make of it what you will". And since none of the Cheneys, including Mary herself, will talk about the subject, there's just not much to talk about.
What's "personal" for her ain't personal for those unlucky enough not have been born into her family. It's red meat. And heaven help you if you're in the service that Daddy Dick was once in charge of.
Yes, well, Fundie issues aside, the Democrats have been no less craven in their gay rights issues. Neither party will let Mary Cheney serve in the military. Neither will let her marry her girlfriend.
Of course if you were a pal -- like Pete Williams -- everything was OK. In fact when the heat was on, Cheney got him a job at NBC. Why not? It's part of the DOD after all.
Plus Pete was never out in the shit, undermining the unity of the squad.
I agree that it's a more substantial story than the "major league asshole" thing. All the MLA deal does is underscore the fact that W is a callow, indiscreet idiot. Wait till he has to greet the Chicom president. "Hey, there's that major league asshole from China, Jiang Zemin."
Diplomacy is a weird world, where even the seating chart can make or break a deal. Just imagine how this smartass frat-boy is going to go over.
40208. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:04:32 PM
Bush: "Mojo, Where's My Mojo, Anyone Seen My Mojo?"
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (Reuters) - George W. Bush just can't seem to get his groove back.
The Republican presidential nominee misplaced it somewhere in the Midwest a few weeks ago and was still searching for it as the campaign entered the final post-Labor Day stretch.
40209. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:05:39 PM
Bush said he was a ``plain-spoken'' man and proved it, calling Adam Clymer a ``major league asshole'' in an aside meant only for his vice presidential running mate Dick Cheney.
40210. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:06:54 PM
Cellar,
Do have any links to sites about Lynne Cheney pushing NARTH-like scams and such? Not that I don't think she was capable of selling this sort of snake oil, but I'd love to see it in print somewhere, cyberwise or otherwise.
40211. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:08:17 PM
DNC Unveils Ad Attacking Bush Record of Leaving Children Behind in Texas
40212. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:10:00 PM
Democrats have been slightly less craven on gay issues than the GOP has. Somewhat more hypocritical in the long run, given their touting of inclusion of gay people and trolling for votes among gays, but slightly less craven (see their platform vs. the GOP's).
40213. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:16:13 PM
C'mon Ronski. The Finance Chairman of the DNC - gay. The ambassador to Luxembourg - gay (no thanks to Jesse Helms).
If this were a dictatorship run by Democrats, you'd have no cause for complaint. But we aren't. We still have to deal with Republicans although there are secret plans now in development for Political Re-education Centers located in freshly burned hinterlands in Idaho.
Sssssshhhhhh.
40214. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:19:24 PM
National Stonewall Democratic Federation
40215. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:22:09 PM
Let's be blunt. No administration in US history has been as strong an advocate for the right of gay and lesbian people to be free from prejudice as the Clinton-Gore Administration. Even former Congressman Steve Gunderson, who is Republican and openly gay, has praised the Clinton-Gore Administration, calling Clinton "a real moral leader on behalf of justice and fairness for gay and lesbian people." And any serious assessment of Vice President Gore's public statements, actions, and progress in understanding the issues would show that he's clearly prepared to move the country even further in the direction of fairness for gay and lesbian people. It's equally clear that any rational analysis of George W. Bush's record and views would show that gay and lesbian rights under a Bush administration would either be ignored or seriously diminished.
National Stonewall Democratic Federation
40216. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:29:10 PM
And when push comes to shove, as it did in the military and marriage, adios amigos.
40217. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/5/2000 1:30:42 PM
We all know who needs "Reparative
Therapy"
40218. jexster - 9/5/2000 1:33:20 PM
Ronski - That's because the Re-education Centers aren't ready yet. We have the building pads left over from the AIDs quarantine facilities the Reaganites prepared in the 80's but not much else.
40219. Ronski - 9/5/2000 1:59:52 PM
jexster,
I've known said finance chairman for many years, actually. It doesn't change my view of how little you can trust either major party on the subject of gay rights, though the Dems do have an advantage over the GOP here, and will as long as the Republicans pander to the religious right.
40220. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:41:02 PM
I've been looking for specific texts by Lynne. But I've heard her go on about "Reparative Therapy" on the many shows she appeared on hin her Professional Meat Puppet days.
40221. Ronski - 9/5/2000 2:42:54 PM
FORMAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS (Have You Written Yours Yet?)
40222. CalGal - 9/5/2000 2:44:24 PM
BobbyJ,
That letter was a hoot!
40223. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:50:44 PM
Analysts See Massive Momentum Shift to Gore
Or as Poppy used to say We've got Mighty Mo!
40224. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:51:12 PM
"And since none of the Cheneys, including Mary herself, will talk about the subject, there's just not much to talk about."
A serious investigative journalist wouldn't be deterred by such silence. There's a record out there that deserves explicating. Of course "investigative Journalism" is a farce these days what with creeps like John Stossel shilling for major corporations and clowns like Isikoff sniffing out semen stains thither and yon.
"Pete was never out in the shit, undermining the unity of the squad."
Ah but he was in charge of the shit. There he was, night after night in front of the blackboard, detailing how those famous "smart bombs" made their "surgical strikes." Had the Gulf War been popular he would have been played in the movie by. . . . Tom Cruise.
Luckily we got a real movie out of the deal -- "Three Kings."
Rather amazing that it was made, AND was hit to boot.
The problem with the press is that it can't see Mary Cheney as anything other than "scandal." Pardon me, but in the year 2000 there's nothing scandalous about being a lesbian, or having a family that isn't interested in having you brainwashed.
What's interesting (not "scandalous," just interesting) is that they see no harm in others having their children brainwashed.
This is a larger issue than the Cheneys -- or their party, or the Dems, or even gays and lesbians.
It speaks instead to the key questions: Who are we? How do we want to live? And what role should the government take in helping us to do so?
Unfortunately the press isn't interested in even asking such questions within its own ranks -much less utilizing them for the stories that need telling.
40225. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 2:52:38 PM
toys
40226. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:54:57 PM
``In the debate on debate, Bush has very little leverage. He is out there trying to create interviews instead of debates but the longer he delays, the less chance he will have to make a decent deal,'' said Davis.
Baruch College political scientist David Birdsell said the Bush position on debates looked weak. ``Bush is making a hash of the debate on debates,'' he said.
Only the woeful RosettaStone and the benighted Ari Fleisher (sp?) seem to think otherwise.
2 Morons.
``Clearly, this has been an awfully good couple of weeks for Gore. Bush has had to scramble back up and has
not done a very good job,'' Birdsell added.
40227. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:56:16 PM
And why is that?
Because he's A MORON!
40228. jexster - 9/5/2000 2:59:37 PM
White House national security spokesman P.J. Crowley began a briefing about President Clinton's trip to New York by saying, sarcastically: ``Welcome to the James S. Brady briefing room at your media-friendly Clinton-Gore White House where seldom is heard of a disparaging word - particularly when the mike is on.''
40229. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:16:51 PM
And John Stossel, in his recent TV outing showing the virtual impossibility of starting a small, family business in India due to the lingering influence of Britain's Fabian socialists under the Raj, was shilling for exactly which major corporation?
40230. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:23:32 PM
Btw, I think Bush's position on the debates is going to prove a major blunder, and not because the Democrats wish it so. The NY Times quotes Bush advisors as saying that they carefully considered the move and decided that no one knew much about and cared even less about the debates commission, and that it would look like Gore was ducking TV appearances with Bush.
I don't think they're right. Among the ten percent of voters who have not made up their minds are many independents who are not idiots. If Gore and Lieberman play this right, and I suspect they will, they will make Bush look like the coward.
40231. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 3:33:43 PM
"And John Stossel, in his recent TV outing showing the virtual impossibility of starting a small, family business in India due to the lingering influence of Britain's Fabian socialists under the Raj, was shilling for exactly which major corporation?"
All of them.
"Socialism Bad. Capitalism Good." A familiar refrain.
He's a coporate whore. "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA" is his motto. Didn't you see the story about his credibility being auctioned on ebay?
Before the sale was stopped it was going for $3.20.
40232. Ronski - 9/5/2000 3:43:21 PM
All the attacks from the left on Stossel, and even the occasional stupidity on the part of his producers (such as in the recent organic food story), cannot change the fact that socialism has been proven bust, and free enterprise a benison.
40233. Ronski - 9/5/2000 4:32:47 PM
40234. Wombat - 9/5/2000 4:50:59 PM
The Cato Institute is particularly idiotic when it comes to foreign/military policy. They apparently do not believe that the United States should have one. If the United States wants to avoid "foreign entanglements," and concentrate on territorial defense (with small forces in Western Europe and Korea), than the military establishment could afford to be much smaller.
If the United States wishes to remain the one superpower, then it must be prepared to actually use its military in situations that might not be clear cut enough for the Colin Powells or George W. Bush's (or the Cato Institute brainiacs) of this world.
40235. Cellar Door - 9/5/2000 4:56:29 PM
"socialism has been proven bust, and free enterprise a benison."
Don't you mean a "Benetton"?
The equasion of capitalism with freedom is one of the biggest con-jobs of all time. My freedom should not be dependent of the slavery of others.
40236. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:37:43 PM
OK, I am back at dear ole SF State U where my stats professor has given me the skinny on the Ohio mail-in poll.
In a word "unreliable" because of the response bias. There is no way to correct for the bias in a mail in poll. There is a way to judge the accuracy through sophisticated "sensitivity" measures which, since they are beyond the scope of the course, I will not bother to investigate.
Such measures are not provided in the boilerplate furnished to Robert.
40237. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:39:11 PM
The CATO institute is equally imbecilic on legal matters.
The better question, what is CATO good for?
40238. concerned - 9/5/2000 5:45:32 PM
Re. 40234 -
Unfortunately for you, the repeated miserable military foreign policy failures of the Clowntoon administration argue against your point.
40239. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:49:48 PM
Two for 2000 Openly Gay Candidates Could Be Key to Democrats Regaining the House in November's Election
Two openly gay congressional candidates in Southern California are
shaping up to be key players in the Democratic Party's effort to win back the U.S. House of Representatives in November.
Long Beach nurse Gerrie Schipske, who is challenging Republican
incumbent Steven Horn in the 38th District, and Palm Springs City Councilman Ron Oden, who is attempting to unseat GOP incumbent Mary Bono in the 44th District, appear to be waging competitive races. Democrats need a net gain of five seats to win the House.
An August poll of 400 likely voters, conducted by Lake, Snell, Perry &
Associates, showed Horn holding only a slim 44 percent to 42 percent
lead over Schipske in the 38th District, a statistical dead heat.
"It's clear the families of the 38th congressional district are looking for someone new who places the same emphasis on quality health care,stronger public schools and affordable prescription drugs as they do," Schipske said
Aug. 28.
According to the poll, only 41 percent of voters said Horn has done an
excellent or good job and only 37 percent of voters said they would
vote to re-elect him. Schipske called that a "dismal performance for a three-term incumbent."
40240. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:26 PM
In 1995, Oden became Palm Springs' first black councilmember. He also became the Council's only gay member last year when he publicly
disclosed his sexuality while establishing local support to enact local domestic-partnership ordinances in the region. Oden, an ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, has two daughters.
Oden believes Bono is vulnerable, citing a March online poll by the
Desert Sun in which he drew nearly 70 percent of the vote in a head-to-head match-up with the GOP incumbent. "Once again, the voters in this district are saying they want to take back their seat from the power brokers in D.C.," Oden said of the poll. "I am the strongest person to challenge the incumbent and will win in November."
70% sounds fishy to me.
40241. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:44 PM
toys
40242. jexster - 9/5/2000 5:54:59 PM
again
40243. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:01:57 PM
Kinsley is perilously close to trademark infringement with his latest
How Big An OxyMORON is GWB?
I claim trademark by use (indeed by overuse according to some).
One thing's beyond dispute however - Jexster hit the nail on the head once again.
40244. Wombat - 9/5/2000 6:02:27 PM
Which failures are those, Insouciant? The restoration of civilian rule in Haiti? The continued hard line on Iraq?, peacekeeping in Bosnia?, Kosovo?, steps toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Even the failures (Rwanda and Somalia) had more to do with reluctance toward committing the forces needed (which is what the Cato Institute and Republicans advocate).
Clinton's foreign policy can certainly be criticized, particularly in his first term when Warren Christopher was SoS, but its acheivements are tangible and positive.
40245. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:07:57 PM
The widespread suspicion that this man may be a dim bulb really lets Bush off too easily. It's not that he is incapable of thinking through the apparent contradictions in his own alleged core philosophy. It's that he can't be bothered. He'd rather just hold two opposing ideas in his mind at the same time. He turns out to be remarkably good at it.
Maybe two ideas aren't that much harder than one, if you're starting from scratch.
I ask for Ohio's legal opinion.
40246. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:22:59 PM
Clinton to attack GOP health care tax break plan
September 5, 2000
Web posted at: 2:35 a.m. EDT (0635 GMT)
From CNN White House Correspondent Major Garrett
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton plans to tout two new studies on Tuesday suggesting that government subsidies work better at increasing access to health insurance than do tax credits or deductions.
Basic microeconomics really and the same point I've made repeatedly about Bush's prescription drug sham, er....plan.
40247. jexster - 9/5/2000 6:23:18 PM
Moron
40248. RosettaStone - 9/5/2000 7:34:30 PM
Hey, Jexster. How's your health? Need an extra prayers next Sunday?
40249. jonesatlaw - 9/5/2000 9:18:49 PM
Ronski- might I suggest some wording borrowed from Miss Manners? Perhaps your parents could send out formal cards:
Mr. and Mrs. Xaiver Ronski
request the honor of your company
announcement that their son, Mr. Ronski Jr. is gay on the twenty first day of September, at 7:30 pm at the Stonewall Country Club. A small dance follows.
Formal Attire
r.s.v.p
40250. jonesatlaw - 9/5/2000 9:22:05 PM
Sorry, the layout is screwed up. I'm having a problem deciding how the press release should be done. They expect so much more detail than genteel correspondence usually includes.
Lets face it, with gay marriages banned, they haven't had to pay for a reception. It's one way to get a party thrown for you like your straight sibilings have had.
40251. joezan - 9/5/2000 9:24:08 PM
A serious investigative journalist wouldn't be deterred by such silence. There's a record out there that deserves explicating. Of course "investigative Journalism" is a farce these days what with creeps like John Stossel shilling for major corporations and clowns like Isikoff sniffing out semen stains thither and yon.
...this, from the author of Famous Hollywood Homos - Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Every Actor Who May Be Gay
Oh, the Humanity!
(Cue Elton John)
40252. joezan - 9/5/2000 9:36:44 PM
concerned:
Message # 40168
"This here's a good dog, Hilliary! Damn good dog!"
Any other caption suggestions?
"G--DAMMIT, BILL! I knew something was fishy that time I found this f---in' mutt wearing a thong!
40253. jexster - 9/5/2000 11:06:05 PM
Cllrdr - See Message # 40251
Saddled with a loser, their buckets of sludge greeted with an overwhelming shrug of the electorate's shoulders, the no-dicked Repugs are now pickin on fags.
yawn
40254. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:19:00 PM
Stumbo,
To answer your last point first Message # 40176, there's a big difference between optional religious classes and fundamentalist religious instruction which is inseparable from the learning day. As for why I oppose vouchers to private institutions, I thought I made my reasons clear, but let me elaborate using your scenarios. If anyone receiving government assistance to get by has enough in their budget to give to private religious institutions, outside their small church donations, and certainly if they're giving an amount that would pay tuition to a private school, their benefits need to be cut way back. Government aid to support the needy is not meant to provide those kinds of luxuries, and that includes donations to the charity, cult, psychic network or whatever, of the recipient's choice. In addition there's the problem here (I doubt in Canada) of zero government regulation, minimum standards, or requirements to serve all types of students for private schools. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They can have complete autonomy to teach as they choose as long as they don't operate with government money, afaic.
40255. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:19:18 PM
As far as the internship, I would like to see more than your personal observations regarding the worth of a year of practice teaching. The direct instruction under a master teacher--not one waltzing through to retirement on worksheets and built-up sick days, but a real master--is invaluable in preparing students to become teachers. Any one who's in that type of program who's finding diminishing returns after the first couple of weeks is probably not cut out to be a teacher, imo.
Most teachers in the past, unfortunately, learned just like I did, in their first year with some 100 to 150 student guinea pigs to help train them. That's why teachers are always told never to quit after their first year. It's an eye-opening experience in which they must learn everything with virtually no assistance. A one year internship clearly would go a long way toward fixing that problem.
40256. jexster - 9/5/2000 11:20:54 PM
Cllrdr -
Speaking of your area....I noticed a guy with a copy of The Celluloid Closet under his arm this eve....comments?
40257. arkymalarky - 9/5/2000 11:27:23 PM
Jones,
Amen on Message # 40180, and it goes double for state education departments and many administrative positions, the products of the educational institutions in secondary ed in particular, but also elementary, which in my experience is much weaker than it should be, who try to send teachers chasing papers instead of teaching students.
Oh, and btw, Stumbo, teachers' unions actually have precious little clout in many local areas, much less state and national. When Clinton implemented his big reform package in AR which many other states modeled and later improved upon (including TX, I'll admit) the idiotic leaders of the AEA picked the Teacher's Test to squawk about. A test any third grader should be able to pass and one over which any teacher who couldn't pass should have been handed a broom and demoted to toilet clerk. That's the only time in my 20 years I remember the teachers union having anything significant to say in anything besides Little Rock school issues. They do pretty well there, but it's a very adversarial and unpleasant relationship they and the LR administration have cultivated.
40258. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:24:22 AM
"This is very telling," says Jake Tapper of Salon.com, adding that the Bush campaign has also chewed him out for his coverage. "Of all the heinous people Bush has encountered, the one we hear him saying something negative about is the one who pointed out that Bush's record on health care is pretty weak. What does he think it's going to be like if he actually gets elected president? He's been spoiled by a press corps that has generally been intimidated or lazy or fawning."
"We think Adam is an excellent and very experienced reporter," says Michael Oreskes, the Times's Washington bureau chief. "They've never complained to us about Adam Clymer. They did raise some questions about that story, and we didn't agree with them. We take complaints by phone, fax and e-mail, but not generally by open mike. It's not the standard approach."
Strictly Bush League.
40259. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 1:07:50 AM
Well it's nice to know that people are still reading Vito, jex.
joezan, of course, has never read my book.
40260. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 1:50:41 AM
.
Keep today's NYTimes away from Shrub. Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman separately administer lessons demonstrating the wisdom of exercising caution when selecting opponents for a pissing contest.
Dowd
Krugman
40261. EricCartman - 9/6/2000 2:10:01 AM
RJB:
Not a bad Dowd column. But both links are the same one. Here's the Krugman column.
I hope.
40262. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:34:50 AM
Jones, #40180-1:
"It looks like we are not so far apart after all."
No, we're not; I agree with most of #40180 (though the devil, as usual, is in the details). But let me ask you yet again: do you think the teachers' unions would agree to the kind of reforms you describe? And do you think the Democratic party is likely to stand up to them? (See also my response to Arky, below.)
"Sadly, there is an important confounding variable for market based solutions. The public often chooses schools on factors other than excellence in the education of the student. I would say that there are a number of parents who would choose their child's school on the basis of convenience for the parent."
Probably; so their kids would get stuck in bad schools, just as they are now. But more responsible parents' kids would get a chance at going to better schools that they do not have now. I'd call that an overall improvement.
(Side note: this isn't really a failure of the market, but of creeping socialism, heh; absent guaranteed old-age pensions, parents would take their children's education -- which, after all, largely determines their future earning potential, and hence their ability to support them 30 or 40 years hence -- a lot more seriously. But I digress.)
40263. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:37:15 AM
Wombat, #40184:
This actually wasn't a religious school; as I said, the religion class was optional. (You had a choice between that, and "Human and Social Studies" -- unless you took both Latin and Greek, in which case you didn't have to take either of the first two.) In any case, though: clearly, government subsidies of such schools haven't made Canada into an oppressive theocracy. Why such a concern that it would happen here?
"The Constitution of the United States makes it clear that there shall be no established (state) religion. [...] the idea that the government cannot and should not allow actions that impose one faith on all remains a central tenet to the United States."
And why would allowing parents to choose whether their kids' share of the country's education spending went to a public school, a non-religious private one, or a religious private one amount to imposing any faith on anyone?
40264. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:38:55 AM
Arky:
"... there's a big difference between optional religious classes and fundamentalist religious instruction which is inseparable from the learning day."
Sure. But even if it's mandatory -- suppose that I compare two schools' academic programs, and decide that my kid would be better off yawning his way through an hour of bible-thumping every day, as long as he gets a much better education in math, English, and so forth? Why would you prevent me from making that choice?
"In addition there's the problem [...] of zero government regulation, minimum standards, or requirements to serve all types of students for private schools."
I have no objection whatsoever to some amount of regulation, and minimum academic standards; that should be a condition of getting taxpayer funding. (There's even more room for negotiation, here; e.g., religious classes not being mandatory could be a condition also. And if some schools refuse to meet that, or any, condition -- well, no harm done.) As for the all-types-of-students (physically handicapped? Mentally handicapped? Uncontrollably violent? etc.) issue -- again, the details would need to be worked out; but surely if it costs the gov't 10 times more to take care of Johnny than Jimmy, it ought to give Johnny's parents 10 times as large a voucher. And if, even then, no private school accepts him --so what? In what way has he been harmed? The money that was earmarked for him is still there.
40265. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:47:51 AM
Arky, cont'd:
"If anyone receiving government assistance to get by has enough in their budget to give to private religious institutions, outside their small church donations, and certainly if they're giving an amount that would pay tuition to a private school, their benefits need to be cut way back. Government aid to support the needy is not meant to provide those kinds of luxuries, and that includes donations to the charity, cult, psychic network or whatever, of the recipient's choice."
OK, good; so we seem to agree that parents being able to use gov't money towards (religious or not) private-school tuition -- just like welfare recipients being able to call up Dionne Warwick --isn't a central-tenet constitutional issue, but merely a question of public policy. Now, clearly the latter isn't a sound one; the issue is whether the former is.
(It might not be the only, or the best, solution -- I've yet to be fully convinced of that, myself, and most likely only extensive empirical tests would be conclusive. I'm pretty sure it would be better than the status quo, though.)
40266. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 2:56:33 AM
Arky, cont'd:
"As far as the internship, I would like to see more than your personal observations regarding the worth of a year of practice teaching." etc.
I guess I misread your earlier post; I was assuming that you meant a year of teacher training, with no ed. theory, but still in a simulated situation (such as prospective teachers giving daily classes to each other). I agree that having an experienced colleague look over one's shoulder and offer advice can be quite helpful. But then, heck, why even call it an internship? Experienced colleagues should always be there -- in an organized manner, not just out of the goodness of their hearts -- to help out the newbies, in just about any job. I'm not advocating "Let this be a challenge to you" writ large.
(This is not that different from what I went through in my first year as a TA; after a week of simulation, we were plunged into the real thing, teaching various sections of freshman courses --and a "mentor" would periodically check up on us, periodically schedule review sessions, was always available if we had any questions, etc. The only difference -- and a crucial one -- was that no weeding-out was possible, except perhaps in extreme cases.)
40267. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 3:04:22 AM
Arky, concl.:
"... teachers' unions actually have precious little clout in many local areas, much less state and national. When Clinton implemented his big reform package in AR which many other states modeled and later improved upon (including TX, I'll admit) the idiotic leaders of the AEA picked the Teacher's Test to squawk about. A test any third grader should be able to pass and one over which any teacher who couldn't pass should have been handed a broom and demoted to toilet clerk."
Answer me this, then: why is it that all Clinton could manage to implement, as far as teacher testing went, was a test that "any third-grader should be able to pass"? (Assuming, of course, that he even wanted to implement a harder one.) Could it be that the union had enough clout to block any test that you would've described as "a test any fourth-grader should be able to pass"?
Your first-hand evidence seems to support my thesis, rather than contradict it.
40268. Stumbo - 9/6/2000 4:10:59 AM
I dunno what to make of Krugman, BTW. Maybe he suffered a stroke shortly after getting the NYT job.
"Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments."
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back $1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow. But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S. government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate available.
(I wonder if Paul would lend me a grand today, on condition I repaid him $1,001 a year from now. Surely he'd be happy to make that buck, right? After all, it's an "extra" buck.)
40269. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 4:40:08 AM
Stumbo- if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay and teacher testing- it will have to be administered with a spoonful of sugar to paraphrase a famous English nanny. The sugar would likely be significantly higher salaries for those who make the grade, greater input to how schools operate, and some restoration of the social standing of the profession. The keys to social respect in the US of A are money, fame and power. Fame is really out of the question, so we are left with money and power. The power that teachers want is to have greater control of their classrooms, in discipline and instruction. Both are doable, if there is the political will to follow through with the promises of the candidates.
40270. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 9:57:39 AM
Dare I tangle again with the all-consuming wisdom of the great stumbo? Call me a glutton for punishment, but here I go again.
Stumbo, dear "unsentimental *vulgarity*" (as Dowd says the editors suggest in her op-ed piece today), please explain #40268 to this very dense, not-even-good for ditch digging, no-mind.
If you are estimating a budget surplus that includes reduced interest payments due to paying down the debt, and then instead of paying down the debt you use the funds for other purposes, you can't correctly ignore the fact that the new choice you are making has the effect of raising interest expense and lowering the initial budget surplus estimate.
40271. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 10:37:18 AM
Hey ducky, how 'bout posting a link to Nader's web site?
40272. Ronski - 9/6/2000 10:49:15 AM
Wombat,
Your Message # 40234 makes no sense. Exactly how does wishing to concentrate on territorial defense and maintaining a military presense in Western Europe and East Asia mean the same thing as not having a foreign/military policy? The foregoing is the policy, coupled with a reliance on free trade.
40273. Ronski - 9/6/2000 10:52:05 AM
jexster,
Re: Message # 40237, your dissection of Cato's legal position papers is eagerly awaited.
40274. Ronski - 9/6/2000 11:16:53 AM
Global Whining
(And the traffic in NYC is terrible because of it, too.)
40275. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/6/2000 11:22:00 AM
40276. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 11:35:03 AM
.
Thanks, Eric, for catching my bad link.
40277. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 11:37:07 AM
.
Wednesday September 6 10:21 AM ET
Gore wows women, Leads Bush in Missouri Poll
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Getting big support from women, Vice President Al Gore has erased a double-digit deficit in Missouri to pull ahead of George W. Bush by four points, according to a poll released on Wednesday.
The results fall within the survey's margin of error, making the race in the Midwest battleground state a statistical dead heat, according to the poll for the Kansas City Star.
Gore was down 11 points in a similar presidential campaign poll in July, but a surge in support from women helped push him ahead of the Texas governor in the latest survey, 45 percent to 41 percent. The margin of error was 4 percent.
In the poll of 621 registered voters conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 1 by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington,
Gore led Bush among women 53 percent to 35 percent. In the July poll, women voters favored Bush, 44 percent to 41 percent.
Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received 2 percent and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan got 1 percent in the latest poll. Eleven percent were undecided.
40278. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:08:29 PM
40279. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:09:59 PM
As Dick Armey recently told The L.A. Times, "George Bush is going to demonstrate a new axiom: Good manners make good politics."
40280. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 12:11:29 PM
.
Here are another two columns Shrub should be shielded from, lest he be overtaken by the vapors:
Debates Would Expose Bush’s Hollow Center...Joe Conason
Q&A through a crystal ball...Gene Lyons
40281. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:14:58 PM
Thanks for the Krugman link, Robt, EC.
His analysis of Bush's economic plan once again proves my point. The sum and substance of nearly all Bush proposals is flim-flam. Bush is trying to fool the voters into thinking he's got substance, that he's a "compassionate conservative" with half-baked bunk.
40282. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:18:58 PM
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back
$1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow.
But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S.
government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate
available.
Take a look at how much the US pays as interest on the national debt, a debt bequeathed to us and to our children by Reagan/Bush and threatened with further irresponsible growth by the flim-flam Moron.
The 2 options are equivalent
Visa's got an application in the mail today for Stumbo followed shortly by junk mail from Wee, Screw & Ewe, bankruptcy attorneys
40283. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:23:59 PM
But Mr. Bush's number games on taxes pale in comparison with his breathtaking audacity on Social Security. In case you have been in hibernation these last six months: Mr. Bush has proposed with great fanfare a partial privatization of Social Security, an idea that has its virtues(and its vices, but never mind that right now). But what is his plan? All we know is that he proposes to allow individuals to invest part of the money they currently contribute to Social Security, which will reduce the inflow of money into the Social Security system by $1.3 trillion over the next decade — and that he insists he will not cut benefits.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, GWB what GWB proposes requires a $1.3 trillion inflow of money from the General Fund over and above any amounts that may be required to meet the baby boomer retirements.
Bush doesn't put forth a detailed budget plan because to do so would show what he's shown in his speeches and in his stewardship of Texas gov't - the Moron can't add.
40284. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:33:23 PM
From Paul Krugman's Website
Here's why Bush's plans have me upset: our current situation is one in which, mainly through good luck - an unexpected economic boom, together with a political deadlock that has prevented both ambitious new spending plans and irresponsible tax cuts - we have managed to achieve an almost responsible fiscal policy. That is, our current situation - no wars or major military rivals, demography that is more favorable than it will be for the next couple of generations - is the sort of situation that, on any model, ought to be used to run surpluses and pay down debt. There's a good case that we aren't running surpluses as big as we ought, but at least we've
moved in the right direction.
Now along comes Bush with two major proposals: a huge tax cut, which not incidentally greatly reduces the progressiveness of the tax system; and a partial privatization of Social Security that makes sense only if substantial funds are transferred over from general revenue to make up for lost contributions. These proposals are made to seem less irresponsible than they are in several ways: by relying on CBO budget forecasts that make utterly unreasonable assumptions about
future spending; by not mentioning the budget implications of the Social Security proposal; and by engaging in petty dishonesty, like the fact that the cost of the Bush tax proposal is always given on a nine - let me repeat that: nine - year basis, without taking account of interest costs, and then compared with budget forecasts that are on a ten year basis. A realistic estimate may be that over the next 10 years Mr. Bush's tax cut would subtract around $1.9 billion from the budget, and that his Social Security proposal might require another $500 billion of support from general revenue. Given a realistic surplus projection, which will be in the hundreds of
billions rather than the trillions - well, you get the point.
40285. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:34:22 PM
The Paul Krugman Website (MIT)
40286. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 12:37:56 PM
Most important line in Lyons column linked by robertyjayb:
"The Washington press clique operates by a code of silence that forbids pointing out that a member is "spinning" facts to keep a "scandal" going."
40287. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:40:28 PM
and The Unofficial Krugman Website
40288. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 12:44:17 PM
.
Oh, dear. Yet another columnist seems to want to make Shrub's belly burn.
Bush's Wise-Guy
Side Is Showing...Lars Erik Nelson
Bush suffers from the image that at heart he is still a wise-guy college frat boy. That image is false; at heart he is still a wise-guy seventh-grader.
40289. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:45:31 PM
For those of us, especially those of us in CA, who are deprived
DNC Ad: The Bush Record - Its Becoming An Issue
40290. jexster - 9/6/2000 12:49:05 PM
Jake Tapper had it right when he said that the media has been giving the Moron a free ride.
NBC & CNN becoming party to his Great Debate Flim-flam is just the latest example. The Columbia Journalism Review's content analysis showing a 4:1 pro-Bush coverage bias is another.
Let's hope that the Potty Mouth incident proves to be the final straw, the turning point towards restoring fair coverage. With a 4:1 bias, there's much catching up to do!
40291. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 1:33:00 PM
.
40289. jexster - 9/6/00 11:45:31 AM
For those of us, especially those of us in CA, who are deprived
DNC Ad: The Bush Record - Its Becoming An Issue
Dammit, jexster, give warning of video in your links. My poor little machine choked and died.
40292. Dusty - 9/6/2000 1:38:30 PM
jonesatlaw
if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay
Is merit pay really considered "bitter medicine"? Sad, if true.
40293. jexster - 9/6/2000 1:39:48 PM
In stark contrast to GWB manifest econ flim-flam & scam, the next President of the US announced a detailed budget plan including a $300 million hedge against overly optimistic budget assumptions
Here
40294. jexster - 9/6/2000 1:40:22 PM
"300 billion" - you'd think I came from Austin TX!
40295. Orca - 9/6/2000 1:54:33 PM
40296. Dusty - 9/6/2000 2:01:21 PM
jexster
Take a look at how much the US pays as interest on the national debt, a debt bequeathed to us and to our children by Reagan/Bush...
Reagan?
Attributing the debt to presidents is economic ignorance, but, even if you want to take a mindlessly simplistic approach and look at the change in debt while a President is in office, less than a third of the current debt was added during Reagan's tenure. Most of it came during the Bush/Clinton years.
(Please don't tell me that interest paid in recent years should be attributable to prior Presidents, no, don't throw me into that briar patch.)
40297. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 2:41:31 PM
Dusty,
Federal Debt:
1980, 909.1
1988, 2601.3
1992, 4002.1
2000 est. 5617 (based on CBO data)
So under Reagan, the debt rose nearly 3 fold, in 8 years; under Bush it rose 1.5 times in 4 years; and under Clinton it rose 1.4 times over 8 years.
Federal Debt as a share of GDP (%)
1980 33%
1988 53%
1992 64%
2000 est. 58%
40298. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:26:27 PM
40299. Jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 4:32:59 PM
Could some of the number literate and econ savy Moties address what the economic effect of Gore's $300 billion nest egg would be? Would it take money out of circulation? What would it do to interest rates, inflation etc? I'm asking for classical theory first, then you all can dazzle the dullards with competing models.
40300. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:33:03 PM
attributing debt to presidents is economic ignorance
See Thoughtful's post and read Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Non-Sense in the Age of Diminished Expectations - Paul Krugman
and tell me you still believe that horseshit.
40301. OhioSTOPAS - 9/6/2000 4:35:42 PM
Walter Shapiro, in USA Today today (huh?) on Bush and Cheney:
"[Bush's] I-didn't-know-the-microphone-was-on comment Monday morning will provide fodder for late-night comedians all week long. Adding to the hilarity was Dick Cheney's sycophantic follow-up, 'Yeah, big time.'"
Cheney's classic portrayal of the corporate-macho yes-man was funny, yes, but Bush was very lucky Cheney was so "sycophantic". For example, imagine how much MORE foolish Bush would have looked if Cheney had responded, "Ssh -this microphone might be on."
40302. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:36:25 PM
When Reagan gave us "voodoo" economics - the laughable Laffer curve - he gave us debt unprecedented in US history. Debt that, had it not been for Europeans and Japanese who were willing to take 7-8%+ notes, would have created a liquidity crisis the likes of which Brazil's worst nightmares don't approximate.
Economic Sense v. Non-Sense - burn it into your brain.
40303. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:38:32 PM
funny GOP money
40304. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:38:49 PM
toys
40305. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:46:55 PM
Don't look to me for models....Setting 300 billion of the surplus aside it seems to me is prudent. It would have some deflationary impact - no tax cuts, no gov't spending, and would exert downward pressure on interest rates.
At bottom, though, is its manifest prudence. Bush has more than frittered away the surplus with his scams all based upon projections that our unprecedented economic boom will continue and there will be no tax cuts or major spending increases.
Its one thing for a pol to court Rosie Scenario in an election year, quite another to run the government. Nonetheless, I don't fault an executive or wannabe executive for setting high standards and goals provided they have some ground in reality and provided that his plans also include provision for the downside.
Contrast then, the Gore SS plan with the Bush SS plan that Krugman so devastates in the above link.
40306. Dusty - 9/6/2000 4:47:19 PM
Thoughtful
Your post just helps to show that there are multiple ways to look at the debt. But until someone makes a credible argument that the President has sole responsibility, or even the majority of the responsibility, all of the measures are close to worthless in terms of commentary on a particular President.
40307. Dusty - 9/6/2000 4:50:13 PM
jexster
I've read enough of Krugman to know that he wouldn't even attempt to measure a President based upon the change in debt during the president's tenure in office.
If you can point me to an article that concludes otherwise, please let me know.
40308. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:53:39 PM
THE RICH, THE RIGHT, AND THE FACTS 40309. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:55:48 PM Dusty - He did in the above cited book and did so quite thoroughly. 40310. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 4:56:53 PM A news media gold mine. 40311. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:57:02 PM The book is short. Its pithy. It does not spare charlatans,right or left. 40312. jexster - 9/6/2000 4:59:50 PM Sorry Rose. 40313. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 4:59:52 PM George Bush shows up on NBC September 12 for an interview; Al Gore stays home. Bush looks like a fool for thinking an hour long interview on one network is a debate. 40314. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:00:51 PM None save Rosetta but then again I hear tell she's got one helluva long position in Serbian War bonds. 40315. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 5:06:02 PM Wrong, Jexster. NBC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and C-SPAN will all cover it. Tim Russert will give the whole hour to Bush and he scores. 40316. Dusty - 9/6/2000 5:07:45 PM jexster 40317. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 5:19:49 PM ABC and CBS are not going to cover an event done by NBC. The top three networks are ABC, CBS, and NBC. 40318. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:20:16 PM From The Statistical Abstract of the US 40319. jexster - 9/6/2000 5:21:27 PM The excerpt and the link was on another point. Should have been clear. 40320. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 5:24:04 PM If Prince Albert doesn't show up, the headlines September 13 will be AL GORE: MISSING IN ACTION 40321. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 5:33:34 PM Dusty, from Peddling Prosperity, 1994, a chapter on the budget deficit: 40322. Thoughtful - 9/6/2000 5:38:39 PM Another example from the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office January 1994 budget review: 40323. robertjayb - 9/6/2000 5:40:58 PM . 40324. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 5:49:23 PM 40320. RosettaStone - 9/6/00 10:24:04 PM 40325. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:02:27 PM Absolutely. He was flying F-102 jets protecting our southern flank from communist Cuba and the evil Soviet empire 40326. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 6:06:26 PM Major League....well, you know the rest. 40327. JudithAtHome - 9/6/2000 6:06:43 PM Big Time... 40328. glendajean - 9/6/2000 6:14:13 PM Living in Texas during those years, I remember how threatened we all felt. Invasion seemed imminent. Who knew if that bright light we heard about in school would come, forcing us to run into the ditches along the farm to market roads, ducking and covering our head from the atomic blast? 40329. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:21:01 PM Many are called. Few are chosen. Only the best flew the hot F-102. 40330. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 6:22:51 PM So he sent. . . Lady Bird. 40331. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 6:38:26 PM Rosetta Stoned-Only the best flew the hot F-102. In 1962, perhaps, but by the time Bush did his stint, the Delta Dagger was nearing the end of its phase-out. It was headed for the glue factory, and had been completely replaced by the F-106 Delta Dart in active units. 40332. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 6:42:43 PM Jones: When was the last time you flew a fast, single-seater military jet? 40333. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 6:52:12 PM Rosetta you have your head up Bush's six so far you can't tell if it's day or night. The F-102 entered service in 1956, and it was succeded by the F-106 in 1959. It was far outdated when Bush flew it. If only the best flew it, Bush, Mr. 25th percentile would have never got near it. 40334. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 6:53:54 PM Here's a REAL Air Force Flyboy. Not a Daddy's Boy fake like Dubbya. 40335. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:11:57 PM Let me get this straight. The B-52 went into service in 1954. Are the pilots flying it now, dumbies? 40336. jonesatlaw - 9/6/2000 7:17:28 PM Rosetta- Yes, the B-52 dates from the 50's, and they have been continuously upgraded and rebuilt over the years. They are still in service with active Air Force units. Many of the current pilots are younger thantheir aircraft. 40337. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:25:13 PM Stumbo, Message # 40264 40338. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:25:13 PM AWOL? What are you talking about? 40339. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:27:00 PM Buy Serbian War Bonds! 40340. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:28:26 PM While Al Gore was servin his country in Vietnam, the Moron was AWOL in Alabama. 40341. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:28:38 PM PS--the high school of choice for my husband's nephew, a kid who made a perfect score on his SATS in math, was the infamous Central High in Little Rock, known to have one of the best AP programs available in public schools. And though he was accepted to Yale he couldn't afford it and didn't qualify for the financial aid, so he's working on his second engineering degree at UofA and has managed that in about four years with all the AP tests he passed, having begun as a solid sophomore with Cal III as his first college math course. 40342. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:31:17 PM Some folks are born silver spoon in hand 40343. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:31:40 PM toys 40344. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:33:35 PM Re. 40336 - 40345. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:36:38 PM Right, concerned. These clowns are making it seem flying military jets is comfortable. 40346. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:37:05 PM From Christopher Hitchen's 'Bill of Goods' He's not exactly my cup of tea but he makes some telling points at the expense of US Socialists: 40347. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 7:37:15 PM Such bullshit! 40348. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:38:28 PM Did he say he wanted to end poverty as we know it? No, he said he wanted to end welfare as we know it. Did he say that the morals of the "greed decade" overclass could use an overhaul? No, he said that the morals of the underclass required strict attention. Did he quarrel with the Dixiecrats? No, he promoted Lloyd Bentsen to treasury secretary after picking a fight with Jesse Jackson over Sister Souljah. Gays in the military, along with people on death row and in public housing -- where warrantless searches were instituted -- joined the large number of Americans for whom "the era of big government" was not over, but had just begun. And those foolish enough to believe the promise about health care found themselves handed over to the tender mercies of the HMOs, an ongoing scandal that will now require a great deal more government regulation rather than less. 40349. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:38:45 PM A price has to be paid for all this, and the immediate as well as longer lasting cost is this: American Democratic liberalism has lost its honor and prestige and has proved itself as adept in making excuses for power as any Babbitt in the Nixon era. (Clinton's fawning speech at Nixon's funeral, I was told by the late, great, and prescient Joseph Heller, contained all you needed to know about him.) 40350. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:38:59 PM Come gather round people wherever you roam 40351. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:39:22 PM toys 40352. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:40:42 PM Cellar has a problem with Christopher Hitchens. 40353. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 7:42:03 PM Yeah right -- Hitchens is a Socialist. 40354. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:42:56 PM Avoiding Vietnam was the last smart thing the Moron ever did. 40355. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:44:09 PM When she was mayor, Dianne Feinstein flew an F-18 Blue Angel. 40356. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:45:54 PM Concerned: With CD regarding Hitches, you can't forget the problem of jealousy. 40357. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:47:46 PM Did she break her leg, jexster? She can't even walk straight. 40358. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:48:17 PM Whatever you think of George W. Bush, 40359. jexster - 9/6/2000 7:49:59 PM Rose - 40360. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:51:22 PM Stumbo, 40361. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 7:51:44 PM The current test teachers are required to take in their respective fields is the NTE, which is a thorough and rigorous test (at least in English, Math, Spanish, and Social Studies, which are all I've had direct or indirect experience with), but like any other national standardized tests of that nature (including the AP's fwiw), its effectiveness varies from state to state because they set the cutoff scores, just as different universities set cutoff scores for AP tests. 40362. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:55:11 PM Jex: That may be true since Clinton took over the military but not back in the 1960s. 40363. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:56:10 PM they had put 40364. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:56:44 PM What's with all this white space? 40365. concerned - 9/6/2000 7:57:45 PM 40366. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 7:59:35 PM Did you know that Gore had his teeth fixed recently. 40367. concerned - 9/6/2000 8:01:15 PM Re. 40366 - 40368. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 8:07:40 PM Only a Communist would get his teeth fixed! 40369. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 8:09:54 PM This is fun but I have to do homework with the kids. Toodle-oo. 40370. concerned - 9/6/2000 8:10:22 PM 40371. Cellar Door - 9/6/2000 8:24:39 PM Look -- Gore's giving the Communist salute! 40372. bloodnfire - 9/6/2000 8:25:39 PM We had an amusing uproar here in the Panhandle of Florida the day before yesterday (Monday 4th). The Superintendant of Schools is running for re-election. His opponant notices that many of his 'vote for for me' signs are missing, and suspects the Superintendant. 40373. arkymalarky - 9/6/2000 8:28:03 PM How funny! It appears no nefarious political tactics are safe any more with modern technology. 40374. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:01:44 PM Hey Rosie: 40375. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:17:45 PM Let me get this straight, Insouciant. You cite Christopher Hitchens gleefuly as he criticizes Clinton/Gore for not being "Socialist" enough, and for emulating the Republicans in terms of what Hitchens considers threats to dissent. Can you see a slight inconsistency in this in terms of your proclaimed distaste for what you call socialism and your adoration of the sainted Reagan? 40376. concerned - 9/6/2000 9:23:01 PM re. 40375 - 40377. Wombat - 9/6/2000 9:40:28 PM I dare say you'll change your tune about Hitchens when he turns his critical spotlight on the vast spaces that make up George W's political philosophy, and his less than stunning record (compared to his current rhetoric) during his governorship in Texas. 40378. MsIvoryTower - 9/6/2000 10:15:13 PM Wombat 40379. RosettaStone - 9/6/2000 10:44:25 PM The Ivins book is trash. I think she sold less than 5,000 copies. 40380. concerned - 9/6/2000 10:49:13 PM I'd sure hate to have my magnum opus be a lousy remaindered book like that. Was it a vanity publisher who had it printed? 40381. concerned - 9/7/2000 12:08:39 AM 40382. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:14:33 AM Jones, #40269: 40383. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:23:51 AM Th, #40270: 40384. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:30:23 AM Arky, #40337: 40385. Stumbo - 9/7/2000 1:35:22 AM Arky, #40360: 40386. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:50:15 AM GOP Fat Cats Worried They Done Bought A Dim Bulb 40387. jexster - 9/7/2000 2:53:48 AM While Rosetta Stone was busy trying to reduce her long position in Servian War Bonds and host lavish K St. Parties for Slobo's Re-election bid, there was trouble on the home front: 40388. concerned - 9/7/2000 2:59:39 AM BUSH AD KEEPS UP DEBATE PRESSURE 40389. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:01:02 AM Pinocchio Bore: Liar, debate promise breaker, no integrity at all. 40390. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:09:55 AM Weak on National Defense, Alphalfa Bore Stiffs American Legion National Convention 40391. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:10:44 AM Guess you aren't part of the inner circle of GOP fat cats, concerned. Didn't get the word about the third week in a row of Bush screw ups. 40392. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:11:39 AM "George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty." - Howdy Doody 40393. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:12:04 AM Thankyuh! 40394. concerned - 9/7/2000 3:12:40 AM My 40393 was in response to 40391, of course. 40395. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:12:48 AM Flummoxed & Confused, Howdy Doody Changes Tune on Defense 40396. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:13:25 AM dim bulb 40397. jexster - 9/7/2000 3:14:33 AM Nite TD 40398. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 8:51:15 AM jonesatlaw, not a complete answer, and maybe more of a question, but I've always thought that any kind of government "trust fund" was utter b.s. because the federal budget is run on a cash basis. There is no capital accounting. When they build a building, they don't set up an asset account for building and then deduct depreciation expense over a period of years. The cost of the building is an expense in the year it occurs -- all strictly cash basis. So things like a social security trust fund, etc. don't exist other than as an accounting gimmick. Each year the government takes in and spends. If they spend more than they take in, debt rises. If they spend less, debt falls. That's it. 40399. Thoughtful - 9/7/2000 8:59:25 AM stumbo, I think you are mistaken here. I'm sure Krugman is more than well aware of the time value of money. Obviously I'm not a mind reader, but I believe the point Krugman was making was the same one I'm making. W's budget proposal ignores the fact that by not paying down the debt, interest expense will rise. I think that because the entire gist of his argument was that W's proposal overspends what is probably already an overestimate of future surpluses, and thus is fiscally unsound. 40400. Dusty - 9/7/2000 9:25:46 AM Stumbo 40401. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 9:31:08 AM 40402. JudithAtHome - 9/7/2000 9:31:19 AM Dusty: 40403. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 9:50:50 AM ...Moreover, the Ivin's book is ranked 679th in Amazon.com sales, 16th and 10th in Primenet and charity/non-profit Purchase Circles, Rosey -- you and your candidate are the ones talking "trash." 40404. stostosto - 9/7/2000 9:51:17 AM Stumbo Message # 40268: 40405. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 9:51:41 AM HaHaHa 40406. stostosto - 9/7/2000 9:54:32 AM Of course what I refer to as "my five cents" are the remarks at the bottom of my last post. The blockquote is a quote from Stumbo's earlier post. 40407. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 9:55:43 AM wizard: pretty funny. You're demented and mote is lucky to have you. 40408. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 9:59:08 AM Actually it would be a good idea to give the page a redesign via an image of some sort -- say one of Dubbya created by Wiz, or some drawing or other that would be changed on a weekly or monthly basis. 40409. Jonesatlaw - 9/7/2000 10:39:03 AM Cellar- I would have to ask for equal time for Gore. I'm sure that there would be plenty of Moties who would volunteer concepts for the Wiz's work, or would seek the Wiz's skill in creating their own. 40410. joezan - 9/7/2000 10:56:40 AM 40411. joezan - 9/7/2000 10:57:45 AM 40412. Cellar Door - 9/7/2000 11:02:37 AM None of us work for the NYT, joe. 40413. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:06:03 AM Gore Up By 6 In Zogby Poll 40414. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:07:54 AM Joe Z - Problem is we want as many people as possilbe see the Imbecile in a real debate - no in 3 real debates PLUS Larry King. 40415. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:08:02 AM Joezan (Message # 40410): What's your point? 40416. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:10:06 AM If I were Bush I'd stop yappin about the debate adn start worryin about the ass-kickin Gore is giving him. 40417. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:11:22 AM Ohio - 40418. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:15:22 AM Maybe Bush's "I didn't know the microphone was on" APPARENT faux pas was actually deliberate attempt to gain identification with the Gipper. A stroke of genius that will pay off when the Reagan deathwatch begins in October. 40419. OhioSTOPAS - 9/7/2000 11:15:48 AM . . . actually a deliberate attempt . . . 40420. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:28:58 AM 6 1/2 should be 7 1/2 40421. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:38:59 AM Bush Debate Ploy Falls Flat - WPost 40422. jexster - 9/7/2000 11:49:43 AM 40423. TheWizardofWhimsy - 9/7/2000 11:58:03 AM 40408. Cellar Door - 9/7/00 2:59:08 PM 40424. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:05:05 PM The Wash. Post article correctly underscores how Bush is making a big mistake in the "debate debate." Moreover, instead of talking about things that are arguably more important to his campaign, he talks about the debates, and digs a deeper hole no matter what his handlers claim. 40425. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:07:21 PM Ronski: We don't want to reduce the progressivity of the income tax system nor increase the increasing disparity of income in this country. See my Krugman post on the subject yesterday.... 40426. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:09:28 PM God forbid we return to the fallacious, irresponsible, unfair, inequitable, and economically non-sensical era of trickle down, supply-side, Laffer curve, voodoo economics 40427. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:10:48 PM The Rich, The Right & The Facts - Paul Krugman in the American Prospect 40428. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 12:15:25 PM . 40429. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:15:27 PM Figure 1 shows a picture that ought to be part of the consciousness of anyone who thinks about trends in the U.S. economy since the 1970s. The figure shows the rate of growth of income at selected points in the income distribution over several different periods. 40430. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:15:46 PM 40431. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:16:25 PM jexster, 40432. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:21:20 PM The "Krugman Calculation" 40433. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:22:35 PM Btw, the election is over. Barring some major gaffe by the Democrats, Gore will win thusly: 40434. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:24:34 PM Figure 2 ought to suggest to you that we are not talking about those schoolteachers: the really big income gains were not near the bottom of the top quintile, but at its top. Indeed, according to the CBO's numbers the share of after-tax income going to the ninth decile families between the 81st and 90th percentiles actually fell slightly between 1977 and 1989. So all of the siphoning went to families in the top 5 or 10 percent. And given Figure 2, one might well suspect that the bulk went to the top 1 percent. 40435. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:25:11 PM 40436. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:25:32 PM 40437. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:25:57 PM (I've been fence-sitting on a prediction, but what tips the scale for me is seeing that Gore has done what I thought he would, which is appeal to the middle class. The NY Times reported this morning that Gore has dropped "working families" for "middle class families" in his stump speech.) 40438. robertjayb - 9/7/2000 12:28:53 PM . 40439. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:30:02 PM Epstein's right to a point. He corrrectly identifies that the Bush programs give rise to the problem I have repeatedly noted of "adverse selection" and the problem underlying both the Gore and Bush programs that subsidizing service to any extent, increases service demand and thus exerts upward pressure on medical costs. 40440. JudithAtHome - 9/7/2000 12:30:17 PM I think Bush is making a huge mistake with this debate stuff; it looks as though he is afraid to debate Gore for 270 minutes. If he isn't confident enough to stand toe to toe with Gore for that amount of time, why should we trust that he is tough enough to stand up to the job of running the country? 40441. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:35:50 PM "Consider how health insurance affects the quantity of health care services performed. Suppose the typical medical procedure costs $100, yet a person with health insurance pays only $20 when she chooses to have an additional procedure performed.... 40442. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:35:51 PM Nonsense about Epstein. He proposes the marketplace and genuine competition, as opposed to more welfarism. 40443. Wombat - 9/7/2000 12:36:02 PM Judith: 40444. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:36:16 PM See above post. 40445. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:37:12 PM Still think I'm talking "nonsense"? 40446. RosettaStone - 9/7/2000 12:37:36 PM Bush will be there. For sure. 40447. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:39:42 PM Has Bush's Marie Antoinette comment about the debates been noted here? When told that some people did not have cable TV and thus would miss the Larry King debate, he is reported to have said, "They could watch it on their computer." 40448. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:39:47 PM Buy Servian War Bonds!!!! 40449. Wombat - 9/7/2000 12:40:35 PM Rosie: 40451. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:42:32 PM After 3 weeks of straight campaign bumbling, as the Moron continues to sink in the polls, you'd think he'd get the message... 40452. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:42:50 PM toys 40453. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:43:29 PM 40454. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:43:31 PM OK RD.... 40455. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:44:58 PM RD - 40456. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:45:14 PM Subsidization of benefits produces excessive use. End subsidization, and you end excessive use. Lower subsidization levels, and you lower excessive use. Only the latter is politically feasible at any time in the foreseeable future. 40457. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:45:27 PM jexster (and all other “Politics” posters – please take note) 40458. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 12:48:27 PM Re: Message # 40455, jexster. 40459. janjon - 9/7/2000 12:51:34 PM ronski - the only thing that surprises me about your predictions is the meager 3 point spread between Gore and W. It will be more along the line of 6. I agree, though, that Gore's electoral vote will touch or exceed 400. 40460. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:54:14 PM The Bush camp thinks it can challenge the commission's authority because, as a Bush adviser told the New York Times, "Nobody knows who the commission is." That's true. But there's a case to be made for the commission's authority. As the debate over debates heats up, the media are explaining to readers and viewers that the commission is led by the former chairmen of both parties, that it has sponsored all of the fall debates in the past three presidential campaigns, that it has arranged a broadcast consensus with the networks, and that it announced its schedule in January. What has Bush done to match these arguments? He hasn't made a case that the commission is partisan. He hasn't arranged a comparable broadcast deal with the networks. He has 40461. Ronski - 9/7/2000 12:54:56 PM janjon, 40462. jexster - 9/7/2000 12:57:16 PM I never posted the entire article, only a fraction of it. 40463. janjon - 9/7/2000 12:58:47 PM W.'s "he won't debate" shenanigans either speak of abject desperation in Austin or a even-more condescending view of the intelligence/memory of the average American than I thought they had, or more likely a combination of both. 40464. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:03:09 PM Minor complaint about the Wash Post article earlier on the debates: the commission is not non-partisan (as the League of Women Voters ostensibly is, they who earlier mounted the presidential debates); it is bi-partisan. 40465. jexster - 9/7/2000 1:05:06 PM I am betting the GOP will start transfering bucks to congressional campaigns deliberately starved in a failing effort to recapture the WH 40466. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:06:55 PM ronski. Of course, W. could campaign harder. But, will he? There is more than a little rigidity there and he really has made it clear that he wants (and needs) a very measured day. And, if he does, what do you think the odds are that he will indeed stick his big foot/mouth into the deep doo-doo. Not so much more of the misstatements (people are sort of used to that, now), but the peevishness, pettiness, smirkiness will reveal itself. Especially as the campaign continues to unravel. 40467. jexster - 9/7/2000 1:06:56 PM CNN's Candy Crowlie (sp) is reporting from the Bush campaign that they are bracing for a number of polls that show Gore in the lead and that major figures in the GOP are getting very worried. 40468. rubberducky - 9/7/2000 1:08:39 PM does anyone have any differing views on the previous belief that the GOP will hold both houses? 40469. vonKreedon - 9/7/2000 1:15:36 PM 40470. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:16:37 PM I think the House will go Democrat by a few seats. And the GOP will lose a couple of seats in the Senate. 40471. vonKreedon - 9/7/2000 1:17:47 PM RD - I also would prefer that people write their own arguments, rather than simply posting extensive sections of other people's writing. Make an argument and include short relevant sections of sources to back up factual claims in the argument. 40472. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:20:33 PM vonKreeden. Gore is almost at the point where he doesn't have to do anything. Although it might be a good tactic for him to show up and proceed along the lines you suggest, if he chooses not to, only the true W. believers will conclude that W. is gaining any traction on this absolutely silly "let's talk and debate but only on my terms" gambit he's trying to pull off. 40473. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:21:24 PM ronski. Corzine's money and the Gore margin in New Jersey will make it Senator Corzine. 40474. Ronski - 9/7/2000 1:30:12 PM janjon, 40475. janjon - 9/7/2000 1:38:52 PM Ronski. Well, Pataki and the boys are obviously worried about the State Senate (ergo, or at least most of the ergo, the recent anti-gun violence law signed by Pataki and with a lot of hitherto neutral-to-opposed suburban GOP State Senators very very visibly on the bandwagon.
From the American Prospect
Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate
SYNOPSIS: Broad analysis of current Wage Disparity. Paints picture of rising inequity heightened by Reagan years and inattention. During the mid-1980s, economists became aware that something unexpected was happening to the distribution of income in the United States. After
three decades during which the income distribution had remained relatively stable, wages and incomes rapidly became more unequal. Academic researchers soon began arguing vigorously about the causes of the growth in inequality: was it global competition, government policy, changing technology, or some other factor? What nobody, whatever his or her political stripe, questioned was the fact that there had been a dramatic change in income distribution.
During 1992 this genteel academic discussion gave way to a public debate, carried out in the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and assorted popular magazines. This public debate was remarkable in two ways. First, the conservative side displayed great ferocity in presenting its case and attacking its opponents. Second, conservatives chose to take an odd, and ultimately indefensible, position. They could legitimately have challenged those who have called attention to the growing dispersion of income on the grounds that nothing can, or at any rate should, be done about it. But with only a few exceptions they chose instead to make their stand on the facts to deny that the massive increase in inequality had happened.
Since the facts were not on their side, they were forced into an extraordinary series of attempts at statistical distortion.
More
The tooth fairy didn't do it.
George Bush shows up to NBC for the September 12 debate on Meet the Press. And taunts Al Gore for not showing up after he already accepted.
Bush has already fucked the pooch in the Great Debate over Debates. When ABC & CBS said to nobody's surprise that they'd not be party to the Bush scam, the jig was up.
We want real debates that everyone can see. We want the non-partisan Presidential Commission debates.
As one former Reagan/Bush speechwriter put it: "Nobody's buyin Bush's peekaboo without purpose"
Judith, go away. Cazart wants you in TT.
Not even a hint in the excerpt. Was that intended to illustrate your point, or simply to identify the book?
I need something more to justify reading it.
This is a major league faux pas by the Bushter.
Interest on the National Debt, 1999(est)$227,000,000,000
Defense Spending, 1999 276,000,000,000
It deals with the problem of increasing income disparity.
Just like Vietnam, he hide behind a typewriter in the military flak office in Saigon.
"At first glance, you might think that the US deficit problem began long before Ronald Reagan. The federal government has run a surplus in only one year out of the past thirty. Why blame Reagan for the continuing trend?
"The answer is that until the Reagan years, budget deficits were samll and economically more or less irrelevant. A simple indicator of that irrelevance is the ratio of federal debt to GDP, a measure of the size of debt compared with the size of the economy....In terms of the size of the its debt realtive to the size of its tax base, the US government was in noticeably worse shape when John F. Kennedy took office than it was when Jimmy Carter left it.
"After 1980, however, the gradual downward trend became a steep climb. The era of deficits had begun."
_______________
I've posted this stat before. Someone calculated the difference between the budgets Reagan proposed and the budgets finally passed by Congress. The difference over his presidency was .06%. I would say there is evidence that the Presidents' proposed budgets and those passed by Congress.
"...the deficit picture is significantly brighter than it appaeared one year ago when the CBO projected that the deficit would soar above $350 billion by FY 1998. CBO now projects that the fedearl budget deficit will fall from $223 billion in the current year to below $170 billion in 1996....The dramatic improvement since last January is largely the result of the enactment in August of a major package of tax increases and spending cuts -- the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993."
As you may recall, this was the tax increase that Newt and company said would put the country in the deepest recession ever. Despite much wrangling and political maneuvering, the tax package passed. (I may be wrong but didn't Gore cast a tie-breaking vote on this?) Clinton (and the smart economists he's hired) gets full credit for this one.
Don't crowd the Shrubster, he needs his rest...
WACO, Texas (AP) - It will harder to get a look at Gov. George W. Bush's ranch near Crawford.
That's because McLennan County commissioners have restricted traffic near the 1,600-acre spread.
Motorists cannot park, stop or stand along about three miles near the ranch, which is at the intersection of Prairie Chapel and Rainey roads.
If Prince Albert doesn't show up, the headlines September 13 will be AL GORE: MISSING IN ACTION
Just like Vietnam, he hide behind a typewriter in the military flak office in Saigon
As opposed to the exemplary bravery of George W. Bush.
Thank the Lord George W. Bush prevented this from happening.
We had just lost a president because of the Cubans, and LBJ wanted the best to protect his state.
By the time Bush was at the controls both pilot and plane were in the bottom 25%.
Gosh darn it, you people are pathetic.
Any military jet is dangerous. Very. Only the brave fly them. Cuba and the Soviet Union were our enemies in the 1960s and the Texas National Air Guard were part of protecting the Gulf Coast from their Bears, MiGs and submarines.
But, you can't avoid the fact that your third rate hero was in a third rate aircraft when he wasn't AWOL.
"Why would you prevent me from making that choice?"
If you're saying that my insistence that you pay for your own child's private education instead of having the state pay for it is depriving you of choice, I don't see how that can be so in a capitalist society. Tell you what--I want my child to go to an Ivy League university. I can't afford it, so let's just let the government foot the bill. After, of course, they've sent her to the elite private academy of my choice.
Regarding your response to Wombat on religion, I must point out that these schools are already in existence with these curricula. What makes you think that free government money will suddenly change that without government regulations to go along with it? And if that were to be the case, wouldn't it defeat the concept of parents choosing what type of school their children attend?
Again I think capitalism along with government-funded good, basic care for the young, old, and infirm works best here. Make sure everyone has the basics provided for them in the highest quality possible with the amount of government financial strength we have and those who choose to make a more elite or a religious private institution a priority for their kids can show their commitment by earning the extra money to pay for it.
WRT Johnny, the special needs kid, if he hasn't been harmed in your example, he sure hasn't been helped that I can see. What the sam hill good is earmarked money if he can't use it to get in the school his parents think is best for him? Are you saying he can take that money and use it however he chooses within the public schools? For private tutors? To spend however his family sees fit? But Joe Lower-middle Class' "normal" kid gets his choice of schools, whether it's Moonie Academy or Falwell High.
Again I ask you, when was the last time you flew a F-102?
They've still not found records that he reported for duty Rose although Sen. Shelby's on the case.
In short, I don't see any way that offering vouchers to private schools isn't going to open up a big can of worms with little measurable benefit for most children it's supposedly aimed at helping over that of simply letting them choose among public schools .
Lord don't they hep themselves Lawd
But when the tax man comes to the door
The house it looks like a rummage sale yall
It ain't me, It ain't me
I ain't no millionaire's son
It aint me, it ain't me
I ain't no fortunate one
Whatever you think of George W. Bush, he easily beats the pencil pushing REMF who barely showed up in Vietnam.
Darn hard stuff, if you get my drift.
And Bush was responsible for protecting our Gulf Coast from the evil empire and their lackies.
The Clinton years, in other words, have completed and locked in the Reagan revolution. They have also effectively lowered the boom on dissent. It is now more or less axiomatic that "politics" will continue to be conducted in the way creatures like James Carville conduct it -- as a managed interface between focus groups and high-tab donors, where the holders of the purse strings get to decide which questions are asked in the opinion polls and which candidates get to be chosen before you and I have any say in the matter. This process was pretty far advanced by 1992. But it's now so much taken for granted by the Republicrat duopoly that some conservatives even feel safe in questioning it.
It wouldn't be fair to say that Clinton did all this after reluctantly discovering the limitations of power, or in response to pressure from polls and the center. After all, polls consistently show strong and well-informed majorities in favor of national health insurance, and who's going to claim that the White House acted to make itself popular on that issue? (Not enough special-interest enthusiasm.) No, we were fairly warned as early as 1992 that Clinton wanted to move the party and the country to the right, and this after eight years of Reagan and four of Bush.
We are supposedly entering "legacy time," and I think history will record with some astonishment that this remorseless progress toward a corporate state was accompanied by a chorus of support from the politically correct. During the impeachment battle, for example, feminists rallied around a man who hit on the help and then trashed his conquests if they complained. African American leaders described as "our first black president" a character who as a candidate had made a point of executing the mentally deficient Rickey Ray Rector, who ditched Lani Guinier, humiliated Betty Currie, and vetoed a United Nations resolution calling for international action to forestall the genocide in Rwanda. Liberal academics and intellectuals flocked to a president who had bombed Sudan in dog-wagging style, deceived his Cabinet, taken wagonloads of off-the-record money from Indonesian and Chinese special interests, and rented Mr. Lincoln's bedroom to the fat cats.
By riding what would have been Bush's boom had 1992 not been an election year, Clintonism has obscured much of this for now. I'm sure that there are people reading this and saying to themselves: "Yeah, but what about the Supreme Court and the Christian Coalition? What about a woman's right to choose?" Those were exactly the things that had liberals waving their arms in panic when Ronald Reagan won in 1980, except that back then they expressed concern about matters like poverty and racism and the arms race and human rights as well. If you look back and think about it, you may agree that neither Reagan nor Bush instituted a microsecond of school prayer or declared a single actual fetus to be a citizen, and that neither would Dole have, and that most certainly neither will this junior Bush. But it's important for the maintenance of consensus that some people keep on being scared of what might happen and probably won't; otherwise, they would not be such easy prey for what can happen and actually has. There is even a name for this tactic -- it's called "triangulation" -- and eight years of it have been much more than enough.
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin
Then you better start swimin or you'll sink like Rosetta Stone
For the times they are a changin'!
Come Senators and Congressmen please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway, don't lock up the hall
For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled
For the battle outside ragin
Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a changin'!
Socialist Hitchens is the real thing, something Demo hacks don't understand
A NATIONAL SOCIALIST!
It's a small world that they live in.
Gore did his five months behind a desk writing press releases. Bush flew hot F-102 over the coastline hunting down Soviet MiGs.
I think he's a dim bulb
The line it is drawn the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be fast
as the present now will be past
The order is rapidly past
For the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a changin'!
You don't have a clue do you?
The mission of the Texas ANG is 1) to protect the borders against Okies 2) to search and destroy Santana's armies
On the internship, it's a term for which the student teacher is completely unpaid that is considered part of the education degree program. The teacher wouldn't teach all classes, but would take two or three of the master teacher(s)' classes and grade, tutor, attend meetings, and everything else that goes along with teaching. IOW, you don't have your own schedule, but take parts (hopefully in varying degrees of size, ability, behavior, etc) of an existing teacher or teachers' loads. It wouldn't be a full regular class load and the intern teacher is not solely responsible at any time. If he/she has problems it is up to the supervising teacher and university advisors to help. It's very much like what you describe in your TA experience.
Message # 40267
OK, on the teacher test, I didn't explain that one very well either (all right, no comments from anyone--and that means you, Rose ;->--I do better irl, I promise), partly because it's hard to keep it from being a long and complicated story. One of the big criticisms of AR teachers was incompetence on the most basic levels--that colleges had passed people with ed degrees who couldn't even do the basics in the three r's. The test was never meant to be more than a measurement of whether that was true, and teachers who failed it would be removed. They had several chances to take it, and I don't know how many failed at least once, or whether any were ultimately dismissed. It was a breeze to me and most people I knew, and I didn't pay any more attention to it. The stink raised about it by the AEA while everything else was ignored was something I found embarrassing as a teacher. Nothing changed as a result of their protests in that regard, either.
cont
And I agree with Jones, but the most important cure to the teacher shortage is the bottom line. Math majors who think they're going to be teachers have a hard time turning down signing bonuses that are larger than their first year's income would be, in addition to yearly salaries twice what they would make as teachers. This is happening in the small nearby university's math dept at an alarming rate. They get intended math ed majors who go for straight BS's or even hire out in their junior years to companies who foot the bill for their senior year in ed. It's about the same for Chem and Phys majors.
Remember that just a few years earlier Kennedy had been killed in Texas by a Soviet/Cuban mole and had put offensive weapons on AirCraft Carrier Cuba.
Only the best protected our southern flank against the infidels.
A Major League Scumbag Pitching Another Slimeball
Too bad they didn't do soimething about the rest of his face. 
Needs Hall Pass for another Iced Tea Break
So he sets a trap. He places one of his placards in a conspicuous place on the highway, and hides a video camera behind a bush. The camera clearly shows the Superintendant driving up in his truck, his own voting slogans plastered all over it, and 'close up' shows him reaching out of the truck door, snatching his opponant's sign, and slinging it into the back of his pickup, before driving off.
The video tape was on the evening news on Monday evening, and yesterday morning (election day) ! It's south of us in Bay County (Panama City), and I haven't heard the final results. But as early returns came in, he was being beaten two to one by his opponant.
A reporter went into his office on Monday and challenged him to explain his actions. The man straight facedly said..'Well, I know I shouldn't have taken his placard, but that videocamera is dirty politics' !! And the beat goes on....
You might be old enough to have been drafted. Did you serve? Fly the hot jets, hang out with the Marines?
My reading of Christopher Hitchen's ideological position in this article is that he himself appears to have more libertarian left wing tendencies than socialist ones.
I understand that Molly Ivins has published a book on the short, but happy, career of GW. She calls the book "Schrub", The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. Have you read it?
I feel sorry for her because she has cancer.
"... if you want teachers unions to swallow the bitter medicine of merit pay and teacher testing- it will have to be administered with a spoonful of sugar to paraphrase a famous English nanny. The sugar would likely be significantly higher salaries for those who make the grade..." etc.
"For those who make the grade" -- precisely. The unions are afraid that a large percentage of their current members -- maybe more than half -- would not. If I lose my job, is it any consolation to me that the guy who replaced me is getting more money (and more power, etc.) than I used to get?
"If you are estimating a budget surplus that includes reduced interest payments due to paying down the debt, and then instead of paying down the debt you use the funds for other purposes, you can't correctly ignore the fact that the new choice you are making has the effect of raising interest expense and lowering the initial budget surplus estimate."
But that's not related to what I'm objecting to.
In the sentence I quoted, Krugman implies (or seems to be implying) that interest payments are an "extra cost." But they're not; $1 today is worth more to me than $1 tomorrow, and even more so than $1 a year from now (and I'm not talking about inflation, here). The going annual interest rate represents a market consensus about how much more $1 today is worth than $1 a year from now. If that rate is r, then there is no difference between paying back $X today and $X(1+r) a year from now; that $Xr is not an "extra cost."
Now, one could make a subtler argument as to why the government's choice of this or that option might slightly change the interest rate, by some small amount, say, delta r. Then what must be repaid a year from now would be $X(1 + r + delta r), and that $X(delta r) might be considered an extra cost. But this looks much less impressive; so Krugman, no doubt knowing full well that many readers will come away thinking $Xr is an extra cost, carries merrily on -- who cares if they're misled, as long as it makes them more likely to accept his main thesis. This, to me, looks more like the attitude of a propagandist than an economist.
Or maybe he really does think it's $Xr. I dunno.
(Meanwhile, my Shylock line -- which was the real reason I even bothered posting #40268 -- seems to have failed to bring the house down. Oh well.)
"If you're saying that my insistence that you pay for your own child's private education instead of having the state pay for it is depriving you of choice, I don't see how that can be so in a capitalist society. Tell you what--I want my child to go to an Ivy League university. I can't afford it, so let's just let the government foot the bill. After, of course, they've sent her to the elite private academy of my choice."
Well, technically speaking, yes, all of these are examples of denial of choice; but what we're discussing is whether such denial is reasonable. It's perfectly reasonable for the govt to deny you the right to choose something that would cost it (i.e. the taxpayers) more. But I don't see why it's reasonable to deny it if the cost is the same. Likewise, I don't see why it's reasonable to deny it based on a cost not borne by the govt (such as your kid having to sit through religious classes); it should be up to you, the parent, to decide whether that cost is worth the benefits.
I'm not sure I understand the 2nd paragraph, but certainly the govt regulations on participating private schools should be limited to, well, again, reasonable ones. Minimum academic standards, sure. Mandatory study of I, Rigoberta, no.
"WRT Johnny, the special needs kid, if he hasn't been harmed in your example, he sure hasn't been helped that I can see."
I wasn't claiming he was helped (if no private school accepted him). But would you oppose a policy that would help a great many, on the grounds that it doesn't help some small minority?
Well, we actually did get paid (about $1K/month --enough to subsist on -- plus a tuition waiver). Is the internship you're describing concurrent with the (4-year?) program, or does it come afterwards?
"The test [...] was a breeze to me and most people I knew, and I didn't pay any more attention to it. The stink raised about it by the AEA while everything else was ignored was something I found embarrassing as a teacher. Nothing changed as a result of their protests in that regard, either."
Well, right, nothing changed. As opposed to, say, a harder test being given the next year.
And, again, I do also agree about the bottom-line thing -- if public schools significantly raise their standards for teachers, the only (non-coercive) way to get enough candidates who meet those standards will be to significantly raise the salaries. But, again -- the unions care about their current members.
Bush's current taunting of Gore on presidential debates - both in a new television ad and in stump speeches - was also angering some Republicans, said GOP officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
While Bush's pre-emptive ``agreement'' last Sunday to participate in one formal debate and two on TV talk shows was initially cheered as bold strike by Bush, his subsequent refusal to negotiate terms on other formats with Gore was viewed with increasing concern.
Author: DEBORAH ORIN/NYP
INDIANAPOLIS - Republican George W. Bush unveiled a TV ad yesterday blasting rival Al Gore as an untrustworthy debate-dodger as the two sides angle for political advantage.
"If we can't trust Al Gore on debates, why should we trust him on anything?" asks a woman's voice.
It goes on: "Does Al Gore now mean debates depend on his meaning of 'anytime, anywhere'?"
Bush got some back-up when the American Legion's national commander introduced him at its convention and said Gore had refused to appear.
"You deserve better than that," Commander Al Lance told the vets, noting that Bill Clinton had the courage to speak to the convention about why he avoided the Vietnam draft.
Gore aides blamed schedule conflicts. Bush aides suggested Gore skipped it because its commander has said, as has Bush, that the military is weak on readiness.
At the American Legion - on a jammed four-state day reflecting the tense state of a race that is just three days old - Bush again pounded the Clinton-Gore team for letting the U.S. military slide.
"Let's get something straight - these are not criticisms of the military. These are criticisms of the current commander-in-chief and the vice president for not providing the necessary leadership," Bush said.
He'll ratchet up the readiness issue today as he stumps with Gulf War heroes Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf - reminders of his dad's administration.
Bush - who served at home as a pilot in the Texas National Guard during Vietnam - wore his Legion cap and told the crowd, "George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty."
Guess you're what we in the biz refer to as a Lone-Star swillin Gore Bore
Welcome to the big leagues, this ain't the Bushies any more! Its da Big Show!
What a loser!
imbecile
dumbkopf
dim wit
nit wit
MORON
(Meanwhile, my Shylock line -- which was the real reason I even bothered posting #40268 -- seems to have failed to bring the house down. Oh well.)
I first thought it was a typo, then I saw who wrote it and realized it couldn't have been a mistake, then realized it was quite clever. But I didn't think of a useful response, so I simply enjoyed it and moved on. "40379. RosettaStone - 9/7/00 3:44:25 AM
The Ivins book is trash. I think she sold less than 5,000 copies.
I feel sorry for her because she has cancer."
At least she doesn't suffer from terminal stupidity! 
You might be able to suggest something over in the Anniversary thread...about listing this place in search engines? 
My five cents:
"Another big trick involves not mentioning that the tax cut will reduce the rate at which the federal debt is paid down, indirectly costing an extra $300 billion or so in interest payments."
Which two options are equivalent? Borrowing and not reducing debt? The way I interpret Krugman, that is his point exactly. And his charge is that Bush's proposal doesn't recognise that.
No shit, Shylock; of course borrowing $1 today (or not paying back $1 today) means that I'll owe $1 plus the going interest, tomorrow. But the two options are equivalent -- esp. if I'm the U.S. government, and therefore get to pay the lowest interest rate available.
I don't know if Krugman has the numbers right, of course, perhaps Bush really has somehow accounted for the higher interest payments that his plan would occour due to the higher level of government debt. But I don't see anything conceptually wrong with Krugman's statement.
In fact, go to anniversary thread and see discussion on how to promote mote. Maybe your visual talents can be used to help get more posters.
A great idea!
Vice President Algore, on CNN's "Larry King Live," 03/14/00:
VICE PRES. GORE: The second challenge is to eliminate the 30-second
and 60-second TV and radio ads, and instead debate twice a week with a different issue each time. Would you be willing to. . .to host one of the first debates, Larry?
MR. KING: Absolutely, of course.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I accept. I accept.
What's the problem, you Major League Assholes?
Giants lead grows to 6 1/2
Who Let the Dogs Out!
Bush League Asshole & Loser.
Next crucial sign - look for reports that the RNC is sending $$$ to their cash-starved Hill campaign committees.
Don't you think it might also be wise to haul RR out of the meat freeezer in Tarzana?
October may be too late
Mr. Gore told his audience to "read my plan," a pointed reference to the infamous pronouncement by former President George Bush, father of Mr. Gore's current rival, who told voters, "Read my lips: no new taxes."
"My plan wasn't built on cross- your-fingers economics that says we can give more to the people who already have the most and then just hope the benefits trickle down to the middle class," Mr. Gore said, again contrasting himself with the Reagan- Bush era.
To demonstrate a fiscally conservative approach, Mr. Gore said his $300 billion rainy-day fund would be a hedge against overly optimistic surplus projections.
"If today's economic forecasts fall short, this new reserve fund will guarantee that we will not have to cut education or health care," Mr. Gore said. "And unlike the promises made on the other side, we won't be running deficits and endangering America's prosperity."
Actually it would be a good idea to give the page a redesign via an
image of some sort -- say one of Dubbya created by Wiz, or some
drawing or other that would be changed on a weekly or monthly
basis.
40409. Jonesatlaw - 9/7/00 3:39:03 PM
Cellar- I would have to ask for equal time for Gore. I'm sure that
there would be plenty of Moties who would volunteer concepts for
the Wiz's work, or would seek the Wiz's skill in creating their own.
What "page" are you talking about . . ."Flack?"
Then there is the slightly chilling remark from Gore, posted above, about his opponent wanting to give "more" to the "people who already have the most."
Who is the "we" who is doing the giving? And then there is the fact that generally the people who have produced the most have the most. God forbid they should be allowed to keep it.
We, as in We The People.....
A Table Talk poster wants to know:
Why do I have visions of little rat-sized suitcases being shoved into lifeboats on the S.S. Bushtanic?
heh-heh-heh
The income distribution is measured in percentiles. For example, the first set of bars shows the rate of growth of income of the family at the 20th percentile (the top of the bottom quintile). The choice of percentiles ranging from 20 to 95 means excluding the real extremes. Some very important developments are missed by these exclusions, especially at the top. But this picture still gives us a useful baseline.
The three periods chosen are 1947-73, 1973-79, and 1979-89. The first period represents what Alice Rivlin has called the "good years" the great postwar boom generation. The remaining two periods show the "seventies" the period from the business cycle peak of 1973 to that of 1979 and the "eighties" from the 1979 peak to the 1989 peak.
What do we see in the figure? First, the 1947-73 numbers show what real, broad-based prosperity looks like. Over that period incomes of all groups rose at roughly the same rapid clip, more than 2.5 percent annually. Between 1973 and 1979, as the economy was battered by slow productivity growth and oil shocks, income growth became both much slower and more uneven. Finally, a new pattern emerged after 1979: generally slower income growth, but in particular a strong tilt in the growth pattern, with incomes rising much faster at the top end of the distribution than in the middle, and actually declining at the bottom.
In some of the conservative critiques I will describe below, apologists claim that the 1980s represented a normal process, that there was nothing unusual or distressing about the rise in inequality. As the discussion gets a bit complicated, it will be useful to retain the basic image of Figure 1:"good" growth looks like an all-American picket fence; growth in the 1980s looked like a staircase, with the well-off on the top step.
This is the starting point of Krugman's analysis in the article you can find under "American Economy" at the above link. Krugman's views in the article are also contained in a chapter of his "Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Non-Sense...."
I didn't say we should. I am no fan of Reaganomics, or Bushonomics either.
See here for more:
Bush, Gore, Medicare and The Gloomy Truth
(NY Times site, requires free registration)
It is a remarkable fact that incomes have soared so much at the top of the U.S. income distribution. But is it important? Until recently, most economists thought not; growing poverty might be an important social issue, but the fact that some people are very rich was only a social curiosity.
My own contribution to this discussion was to point out that there is a sense in which the rise in incomes at the top is in fact a major economic issue, and to offer a shorthand way of conveying that point: the now infamous "Krugman calculation" that 70 percent of the rise in average family income has gone to the top 1 percent of families....
The rise in average income relative to median should not be a surprise, given Figures 1 and 2. That is exactly what one would expect to see when incomes become more unequal, because when incomes at the top of the scale are rising faster than the average, incomes farther down must correspondingly grow less rapidly than the average. In an arithmetic sense, we can say that most of the growth in productivity was "siphoned off" to high-income brackets, leaving little room for income growth lower own. I emphasize that this is only an arithmetic point: it says nothing about the economic forces at work, in particular whether something else could or should have happened.
When I say that growth was "siphoned off" to high-income families, however, who am I talking about? Are we talking about two married
schoolteachers, whose $65,000 income is enough to put them into the top quintile? Or are we talking about Donald Trump?
Gore 48%
Bush 45%
Nader 3.5%
Buchanan 1.5%
Browne 1%
Others 1%
Gore will get more than 400 electoral votes.
To get a sense of this and, to be honest, to help attract attention to a trend that I thought had been neglected I proposed the following thought experiment. Imagine two villages, each composed of 100 families representing the percentiles of the family income distribution in a given year in particular, a 1977 village and a 1989 village. According to the CBO numbers, the total income of the 1989 village is about 10 percent higher than that of the 1977 village; but it is not true that the whole distribution is shifted up by 10 percent. Instead, the richest family in the 1989 village has twice the
income of its counterpart in the 1977 village, while the bottom forty 1989 families actually have lower incomes than their 1977 counterparts.
Now ask: how much of the difference in the incomes of the two villages is accounted for by the difference in the incomes of the richest family?
Equivalently, how much of the rise in average American family income went to the top 1 percent of families? By looking at this measure we get a sense of who was "siphoning off" the growth in average incomes, accounting for the fact that median income went up so little.
The answer is quite startling: 70 percent of the rise in average family income went to the top 1 percent.
What does this tell us? Since the 1970s median income has failed to keep up with average income or, to put it differently, the typical American family has seen little gain in spite of rising productivity. So when we speak of "high income" families, we mean really high income: not garden-variety yuppies, but Tom Wolfe's Masters of the Universe.
Wealth distribution. Wealth the assets that families own and income are different though related things. Wealth is typically much more concentrated than income: current estimates are that the 1 percent of families with the highest incomes receive about 12 percent of overall pretax income, while the wealthiest 1 percent of families has some 37 percent of net worth. Precisely because wealth is so concentrated, it is difficult to measure accurately from sample surveys: a random survey of a few hundred or even a few thousand people will contain only a handful of really wealthy people.
Nonetheless, researchers at the Federal Reserve Board have tried to use sophisticated sampling procedures to deal with this problem. For some time their surveys have shown that average wealth was rising much faster than median as in the case of income distribution, a sure sign of growing inequality. In March, 1992 they released a working paper that showed a sharp increase in the concentration of wealth even since 1983, with the share of the top 1 percent of families rising from 31 to 37 percent.
Recently, several academic researchers (Claudia Goldin and Brad DeLong of Harvard, together with Edward Wolff of New York University) have put together long-range historical estimates on wealth distribution. They suggest that the concentration of wealth in the U.S. reached a trough in the late 1970s at a level not seen since the nineteenth century, then surged rapidly back to 1920s levels. The point is that the wealth numbers confirm the general picture of a dramatic and rapid increase in economic inequality in the U.S.
(And the fact that Bush continues to make a mess of his campaign.)
Bush has Republicans running for cover...Robert Novak...the lizard strikes
"Undeniable panic is gripping partisan Republicans, from rank-and-file voters to seasoned political operatives, with two full months left before the presidential election. They are dismayed not so much about the surge by Al Gore but the loss of confidence in George W. Bush.
"This mood may reflect the very nature of the Grand Old Party. One Bush adviser puts it this way: "When Democrats face trouble, they circle the wagons; Republicans head for the tall grass." Perplexed by the boost the vice president was given by his pedestrian acceptance speech in Los Angeles, they are panicked by Bush's seeming inability to counter it."
He proposes no solution other than letting the old and the poor die.
c. Economists often blame the health insurance system for the excessive use of health care. Give your analysis of why might the use of care be viewed as "excessive"
d. What sort of policies might prevent this excessive use"
from Mankiw Priniciples of Microeconomics, Ch7
And if Bush decides to go through with next Tuesday's gambit on "Meet the Press," Gore should drop by and ask precisely that question.
What is your military record? Did you serve?
That debate shit don't flush
Small wonder the GOP suckers Bush ripped off for millions are getting worried about their investment.
...and start picking up your own toys!
Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently to the point that the rich deserve to keep their tax dollars would do well to read the excerpts. I can't help it if they don't.
i'd like to see and end to the cut-and-paste of entire articles.
i'd prefer if you post a excerpt or two (reference Greystroke in Current Events as an example) along with a link and make your point.
as an example, messages Message # 40432 through Message # 40436 are unnecessarily long. I dare say no one other than you is reading it. besides, you make no effort to string them together or even credit the author.
this must stop - this was pointed out to you over the weekend, and i thought maybe the point was made. i'd rather not step in, but will if this persists.
thank you for cooperating
(40450 was deleted and this is a repost due to toys)
Anyone who wishes to speak intelligently to the point that the rich deserve to keep their tax dollars would do well to read the excerpts. I can't help it if they don't.
then make the points yourself and don't post article after article that no one is reading anyway.
been silent about the commission's plan all year and has waited until September to announce, with a week's notice, his alternative plan. In the contest of authority, he is trying to beat something with nothing. William Saletan
You may be right, but I'm guessing that the GOP will do something to staunch the bleeding. Bush can campaign harder (he spends only minutes at some campaign stops), they can run far better ads than they have, and so on.
I would be happy to make the points myself RD without quoting, just rewording an analysis that is rather involved.
I bet I could do so and only use 25% more post space.
Nonetheless, I get your message. This is your thread.
I hope you got mine.
Do W.'s handlers really think that he can get away with (a) his arbitrary setting of the ground rules (which, of course, at its core means rejecting the now time-honored role of the Commission that sets up the Presidential Debates) and then (b) accusing Gore of being double-faced (and relying on some historically out-moded comments in doing so?)
True, there is a large core of people out there for whom this or any other election just doesn't attract their attention, but these so-called undecided VOTERS do pay more than just a modicum of attention to what is going on.
Someone up there hit the nail on the head when he/she said to watch what happens to the RNC's money shortly - if it starts going to the Congressional races, then even the true believers will have lost their faith in W.
Granted, I have a bias. And, I hardly ever see W. making his comments because I rarely watch t.v. But, I listen to the radio a lot, and he really does come over as being exceedingly shrill and simple-minded. Part of it is inflection (as in his mantra about it being the PEOPLE'S money), but overall it is just shallow.
As for his "major league asshole" comment - it was interesting to read some commentary that this is right dead on what you might expect in a fraternity milleau. Except, W. presumably would have grown out of that mode by now. At any rate, my reaction was that "it takes one to know one."
if Gore wins by a decent margin (which is looking more and more likely), what will happen to the Congress?
i'm starting to wonder if more GOPers than Lazio have something to worry about these days
(jex: yes, you point is received)
Gore will, IMO, make a big mistake if he does not appear on Larry King and insist that the first order of business is nailing down a debate schedule that is accessible to those without cable or internet. Gore can go on and roast W on W's obvious reluctance to debate in a format that includes more depth than softballs tossed by King for an hour. W's only real, though desperate, hope at this point is that Gore will give W's campaign some traction on the "Gore is untrustworthy" theme, so Gore needs to show up for the debate.
So many races depend on local factors, however. In NJ, for example, Franks is gaining on Corzine, which may make a Democrat-held Senate seat (Lautenberg's) go GOP. Corzine is prone to gaffes, and is really too far to the left for the state, while Franks is an unthreatening moderate.
You may be right about NJ, too. We'll see. Franks certainly is still behind, but I think he has the mo', if not the money.
Also, as you know, the NYS legislature is generally impervious to coattails. What is your most wildly optimistic prediction about how the NY State Senate will end up if Gore trounces Bush by twenty points?
I suspect it will be life as usual in Albany. State Senate still GOP, but not by as much. Assembly very much still Dem. Some cynics say that both sides like it that way.
What is your current take on Hillary/Ricky? (sorry, couldn't resist, but his propensity to have photo-ops taken in amusement parks or w