Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"What does it mean to be poor in America? We can offer no single description of American poverty. But for many, perhaps most, it means homes with peeling paint, inadequate heating, uncertain plumbing. It means that only the very lucky among the children receive a decent education. It often means a home where some go to bed hungry and malnutrition is a frequent visitor. It means that the most elementary components of the good ife in America--a vacation with kids, an evening out, a comfortable home--are but distant and unreachable dreams, more likely to be seen on the television screen than in the neighborhood. And for almost all the poor it means that life is a constant struggle to obtain the merest necessities of existence, those things most of us take for granted. We can do better." --Paul Wellstone, "If Poverty is the Question," The Nation, April 14, 1997
We can do better. That was Senator Paul Wellstone's abiding belief. Wellstone, who died almost three years ago on October 25, 2002 in a plane crash, along with his wife Sheila and six others, was the rarest of Senators--a man of principle, courage and passion. He fused progressive idealism with a stubbornly pragmatic politics.
Setting out in 1997 to "do everything I possibly can to start the national conversation" about the realities of poverty in America, Wellstone would have found these last days to be what he often called "a teaching moment." (He always remained the former Carleton college political science professor.) And Wellstone did travel the length and breadth of this country--as Robert Kennedy had done thirty years earlier, and as Eleanor Roosevelt did during the Great Depression--talking to the poor in towns, cities and counties coast to coast. He understood that "poverty has many faces." And he wanted to "reveal for many of [his] fellow citizens the face of poverty" as it existed at the end of the last century.
Wellstone would not have been shocked to see the poor and despairing faces millions of Americans saw on their TV screens in these last weeks. And while he would have been the first to deplore the moral scandal of such poverty in the world's richest nation, he would have quickly rolled up his sleeves to help rebuild America and the Gulf region. Wellstone understood that not only was it noble and right, but it was good and smart politics to fight on "behalf of good jobs, a living wage, good healthcare and good education."
He also understood that while we need a strong and activist government, he had spent enough time in Washington "and read enough history to know that [problems of poverty] will not be solved from the top. It was a combination of the civil rights movement and the activist movements of the sixties that generated our last truly national attack on the problems of poverty....[that] in a democracy significant social change comes from the bottom up, from an aroused opinion that forces our ruling institutions to do the right thing."
On this third anniversary of Senator Paul Wellstone's tragic death, many of us feel the absence of his energy, purpose and passion. Next week his supporters will unveil a memorial, located less than half a mile from where the airplane accident that killed him went down. As Bill Lofy, Wellstone Action! communications director, describes it, the memorial will be "a place of commemoration and reflection where people can come and learn about Paul and Sheila Wellstone, their lives and the lives of the people lost on the plane crash."
While the Wellstones respected reflection, they wouldn't have wanted too long a moment of silence. They would have been on the Senate floor, or in the Delta, helping with relief efforts, organizing, legislating. And they would have wanted us by their side, working to make this country live up to its unfulfilled promise.
As Wellstone wrote in The Nation, "I think we can do better. That is what Robert Kennedy always said. I think we can do better too. Won't you join me in the effort?"
(To join in the effort, and to support the future of progressive politics, consider a donation on this anniversary to Wellstone Action, the nonprofit, nonpartisan group set up by sons Mark and David Wellstone to train the next generation of progressive leaders.)
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
The best way to remember Paul Wellstone is to bring forth more like him. People with the knowledge and experience of Kennedy, the passion of Dean, and the composure of Kerry. They will be the perfect antidote to the robot conservatives running amok now.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/20/2005 @ 5:33pm
The Wellstone memorial was a disgrace. Nothing more than a political rally. Hardly a way to remember your liberal icon
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/20/2005 @ 5:59pm
Libs
However the organizers chose to honor him was their choice. Show some respect for the deceased.......I know you have no respect for liberals, but could you at least find some compassion in your christian heart for those that are no longer with us.
Posted by jpolston at 09/20/2005 @ 6:08pm
LIBSARENUTTY, That piece of right-wing propaganda has been proven false, nothing more than the invention of Limbaugh, Coulter, and others like them. It's so easy to disprove that even Al Franken could do it.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/20/2005 @ 6:08pm
Disprove it???I watched the spectacle myself on T.V live. It WAS a DISGRACE no matter how you libs spin it
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/20/2005 @ 6:10pm
"Show some respect for the deceased"
Thats my point...you liberals disrespected him by cheapening his funeral
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/20/2005 @ 6:12pm
The memorial itself is to honor a man with greater integrity than all of your cronies combined. I did not witness the unveiling or rally, and it's not important to me how it was done......what is important is to remember what he stood for. He certainly stood for a lot more than a crank on a message board who's only goal is to disrupt intelligent conversation about important issues. His ideas were also somewhat original, not a cut and paste job like yours Libsarenutty, Libsarenuts, aldura; or whatever you want to call yourself:
Posted by jpolston at 09/20/2005 @ 6:24pm
You liberals are talented at insults arent you
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/20/2005 @ 6:29pm
And I would add that the antidote for robotic posters is composure, period. LibsRNutty is a diamond-perfect example of conservative philosophy. That kind of prismatic enlightenment exists only for our amazement, and ought not to be sullied with petty responses.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/20/2005 @ 6:37pm
To Ms. Vanden Heuvel and other "bloggers"
We can do better. We can start by electing Conservatives to office who will pursue policies that will give people in poverty hope, opportunity and a future. We have tried it your way for over 40 years, with the Great Society, and the result of both liberal poverty programs and social/cultural changes has been that an entire generation of people have been enslaved as wards of the welfare state, with no hope in life! Trillions of dollars have been put into this effort, with no tangible benefit.
Those of you on the left constantly remind us that you are the intellectuals with superior wisdom, but you can not seem to comprehend the impact of your policies. Indeed, now with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, you advocate more of the same.
It's a bit hard to swallow when you liberals pat yourselves on the back about how much you "care" about poverty, and crucify conservatives as racit oppressors of the poor, when the conservatives have better ideas that would actually help people, and propel them towards self-sufficiency and self-respect.
I'll finish this post now to give "FRANKGRITS", if he is out there, a chance to read it and post back that my opinion is "drivel"!! Maybe at least some of you will think a little bit about what I've said rather than just post back with the standard liberal philosophy.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/20/2005 @ 6:39pm
Thats funny...Thats exactly the way I view you libs. Mostly as entertainment
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/20/2005 @ 6:39pm
Disprove it???I watched the spectacle myself on T.V live. It WAS a DISGRACE no matter how you libs spin it
Posted by LIBSARENUTTY 09/20/2005 @ 6:10pm
Good. Some others who saw only parts of it, or none at all, have made the same allegations as you have. I am glad that you actually saw it for yourself and came to your own conclusions, rahter then just repeating their opinions.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/20/2005 @ 6:47pm
SJCHERMAK, it's not right to pick a fight on a thread that seeks to honor a genuinely good man. A man who would certainly point out that, in "the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina" to take your example, it's the widely critized Mayor Nagin who is most interested in returning people to their rightful property, while it is our conservative president who has promised hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/20/2005 @ 6:49pm
We have tried it your way for over 40 years, with the Great Society...
Posted by SJCHERMAK 09/20/2005 @ 6:39pm
And the country tried it your way basically from the Industrial Revolution up until the Great Depression. As failures go, that was the topper.
FAILED CONSERVATIVE POLICIES RESULTING IN DECADES OF BOOM/BUST ECONOMIC CYCLES AND EVENTUALLY THE GREAT DEPRESSION ARE WHAT LED TO LIBERALISM AND THE NEW DEAL.
I for one do not want to turn back the clock to the 19th century, forsaking all the lessons learned in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/20/2005 @ 6:53pm
MYPARADIGM- Your remark is typical of those on the left these days who seek to define who can and can not weigh in on issues of the day, and when they can do so. Talk radio is proclaimed "hate radio", conservative women who don't agree with Roe v. Wade are told they aren't qualified to speak on "women's issues", conservative African Americans are told they are "sellouts to the cause", etc.
My comments are on poverty, and this blog is about the question of poverty, so they are ABSOLUTELY appropriate. I would think the late Senator Wellstone would agree. This type of frank discussion will be necessary for the problem to be solved. One liberal after another liberal posting blogs on this website indicating their "awareness" of the problem and how wrong this country is that it still exists has not solved the problem of poverty, and it never will.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/20/2005 @ 8:11pm
I fully concur with ILP. SJCHERMAK must think "better ideas to that would actually help people" means chaining them to assembly lines to be overworked and underpaid. Or perhaps not affording them to right to vote. Ahhh, the good old days...when you could count on two hands the number of men that ran the country through their corporate empires built on little or no regulation.
But SJCHERMAK don't dispare, over the Boy King's 8 years he will do his level best to put on display for the world to see those "better ideas." The poor and working class are being "propelled" alright...propelled as far away from the American dream and the upper class as fast as economically possible.
Hopefully the American people will have enough by 2008 and realize progressive ideals are in their best interest. Regular, common, everyday people do not benefit from unbridled corporate tyranny. Until enough "conservatives" have their jobs taken away, or feel they are being unappreciated and underpaid, they will continue to belief the myth that their good is linked to the good of multinational corporations.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/20/2005 @ 8:17pm
BLUETEXAN- More typical liberalism- the promotion of the hysteria that this country will fall apart if conservative ideas are adopted.
Yes, after the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution workers were many times mistreated badly. The rise of the unions stopped that. But that was then, not now. No conservative wants to go back to that time, to deny people the right to vote, etc. Those are just sterotypes of conservativism that have no basis in fact. You need to read and understand what conservatives are saying with an open mind, rather than just push the sterotype.
If you were to do this, you would see that "progressive ideals" and "populist" agendas often times backfire and hurt the very people they are intended to help.
You would also see that conservatives don't spend all day "lining the pockets of the rich". They talk about things like personal responsiblity (which liberalism has removed as a requirement for people to work towards in this day and age) and they talk about the mess liberals have made of the education system (which hurts the people in poverty big time). All these things matter and in all fairness you need to educate yourself on conservative beliefs on these issues, rather than just reject them out of hand.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/20/2005 @ 8:34pm
The reason that people like Libs don't understand the nature of Paul Wellstone's funeral and life celebration is that people of his ilk had only a life of greed and callousness versus Wellstone's life of giving and warmth; thus the rest of us are happy that the world is rid of Libs' types.
I have found that people mourned the loss and celebrated the lives of people who were warm and giving; and I have found the reverse to be true of the callous and greedy types.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 09/20/2005 @ 8:36pm
Paul Wellstone was a teacher activist who inspired many, including now his sons, bless them. I wish us future exemplars like Wellstone and consider the source when there is ill spoken of the dead.
By the way, I must tip my hat to "libsarenutty" for his determined diligence. Now I'll "ignore" him as I did his previous noxious persona, "libsarenuts."
Pleasant evenings, all.
LAWMAN
Posted by lewwelge at 09/20/2005 @ 8:49pm
ILP,
Great post. I also take issue with SJ's comment that "we've tried it your way for 40 years." It's been 25 years since the "Reagan revolution," when the right wing of this country began a determined effort to cut welfare, Medicaid, Pell grants and student loans, food stamps, and other aid to the poor. It's been 10 years since welfare reform made it impossible for anyone to be "enslaved as wards of the welfare state." And it's been 5 years since W. has been in office.
Posted by 9patch at 09/20/2005 @ 8:50pm
The beligerance and uncouth behavior like Libsarenutty answers the question posed by the author of Who's Really Screwing up America quite well. I do not think it is the answer he had in mind.
Posted by Spritegeezer at 09/20/2005 @ 9:03pm
SJCHERMAK--For what it's worth, I agree that your original post is appropriate to the topic at hand, and that the best way to honor Wellstone's memory as expressed in the original post is to engage in a discussion of the causes and solutions to poverty. You've begun to offer a solution, but I'd like for you to expand on it.
More precisely, when you say that we've tried it the liberals' way for fourty years without tangible result, toward what exactly are you pointing? The existence of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? Which parts of those or other programs would you like changed or removed? Could you do a bit more to demonstrate that these programs have "enslaved" an entire generation (my entire generation, presumably), and what you would offer in exchange?
I feel that the assertion that we've "tried it your (=The Nation's, I assume) way for over 40 years" is at best an oversimplification of a back-and-forth struggle for power between two centrist (to right of center, in my opinion) parties. Claiming that the more liberal view has been dominant during this period is incorrect; as long as I can recall being politically conscience, I remember some elements of the political class using variants on the word "welfare" as an insult, and it seems that these elements have had more than a little success in reforming, as they like to call it, the system as it stands in the US, at least during the last twenty years or so. At the same time, it seems that the American welfare state never was nearly as developed as it is in some European countries today. One can argue about the relative worth of the American system as opposed to its European counterparts, but to argue that we Americans are enslaved by our current system needs both a little more argumentation and context in my mind.
Finally, since you bring up the situation in New Orleans with your "Indeed, now with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, you advocate more of the same," I think that this concretely shows the inaccuracy of your position. I think that the program promoted by Klein's "A People's Reconstruction" (I think that was the title) in this magazine about a week ago is radically different from the social programs that our country currently has in place, would very much put control of people's lives in their own hands, and is perfectly in line with at least my brand of liberal/leftist thinking. On the other hand, the Bush administration's decision to reduce pay standards for some reconstruction work will do very little to help those afflicted recover, but it will help the profit margins of the companies employed to do the reconstruction. Your one sentence reminds me of an editorial by David Brooks in which he lays out the emergency plans for New Orleans as they existed on paper, compares them to what actually happened, and concludes that the government (I think he used the more insulting term "bureaucracy", but the target was clearly th same) can't be trusted to help us cope with disaster. I think there is different, two-part lesson to be learned, which also applies to the welfare state in America: 1) An inefficient government (or in the New Orleans case, a weakened and corrupt government agency) cannot be trusted to do the job it is supposed to accomplish, and 2) The fact that a government fails to execute its policy correctly does not mean that the policy itself is flawed. An extension to the second point: Because it is precisely the sort of mindset that you present (government actions only serve to make people dependent) that was responsible for the weakening of the government, at least at the federal level, to go back to the original plans for disaster management is hardly "more of the same." It is, instead, backtracking from the more conservative route that you seem to advocate; to throw up our hands and say that the government can do no right, as Brooks seems to, seems to be blaming the opposition for one's own failings.
Sorry for the lengthy post....
MG
Posted by matthewg at 09/20/2005 @ 9:07pm
SJCHERMAK writes: "We can do better. We can start by electing Conservatives to office who will pursue policies that will give people in poverty hope, opportunity and a future. We have tried it your way for over 40 years, with the Great Society, and the result of both liberal poverty programs and social/cultural changes has been that an entire generation of people have been enslaved as wards of the welfare state, with no hope in life! Trillions of dollars have been put into this effort, with no tangible benefit."
In the last 25 years "conservatives" (Republicans anyway) have been in charge of the executive branch of the Federal government for all but 8. When we did have a Democrat as President he enacted welfare reform base on conservative ideas. What do we have to show for "conservative" control of our country for the last 25 years? Rising deficits, a crushing national debt, rising poverty and lower tax rates for the rich. Exactly who's policies have failed? The last time we had a balanced (sort of if you don't count SS borrowing) a Democrat was president. Republicans abandon their fiscal conservative policies the minute they control the executive branch. The current George Bush has purged fiscal responsibility from the Rebuplican party, driving a stake through true conservatism's heart in the process. Your current Republican party is nothing more than an unholy marriage between crony capitalists sucking at the government teat and hypocritical religious extremists intent on imposing their prejudices on society. Enjoy your new Republican party, but conservatism has left the building.
Posted by Guiles at 09/20/2005 @ 9:07pm
What a COMPLETE EMBARASSMENT!!!You LIBS proud of this NITWIT???
Anti-War Protesters Call Police 'Stalinists'
By JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun September 20, 2005
The arrest of an organizer of an anti-war gathering yesterday at Union Square that featured Cindy Sheehan provoked a furious reaction from protesters, who pressed up against police officers and called them "pigs," "fascists," and "Stalinists."
The commotion overshadowed the visit to the park by Ms. Sheehan, the prominent anti-war activist whose son was killed in action in Iraq last year.
After she delivered a brief speech before a couple of hundred people at the south end of the park, New York City police officers seized the sound equipment used in the event and arrested one organizer, Paul Zulkowitz, charging him with unlawful use of a sound device and disorderly conduct.
After Mr. Zulkowitz was hauled away, protesters hurled insults at the police, who formed a corridor along the southeast entrance into the park. A sarcastic trumpeter played "The Star-Spangled Banner." By that point, Ms. Sheehan had been whisked away and was headed for a television interview.
An argument also broke out between two protesters over the wisdom of shouting at the police. Lorcan Otway, a Quaker, said he was dismayed by the arrest but said, "Yelling at the cops isn't going to do any good." Richard Degen, a self-described anarchist, told Mr. Otway he was acting weak in the face of an injustice.
Police said the organizers, a coalition of anti-war groups, did not obtain a sound permit for the event, which is required to use amplifiers for gatherings in public parks. Police were heard warning the organizers to turn off the sound equipment.
A spokesman for the parks department said organizers had a permit for tabling but not for a demonstration. It was the third time Mr. Zulkowitz has been arrested in the past six months. His most recent arrest was on August 29 at Union Square, for leading a similar demonstration without a proper permit.
For more than a month, anti-war groups, including the Green Party and United for Peace and Justice, have set up what they call Camp Casey NYC at Union Square, with a tent and tables piled with leaflets. Named after Ms. Sheehan's son who died in the Iraq war, the original Camp Casey was Ms. Sheehan's campsite outside of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Ms. Sheehan's stop in New York City is part of her nationwide speaking tour that began in late August. She is to arrive in Washington, D.C., tomorrow and is expected to participate in a rally on the National Mall on September 24.
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/20/2005 @ 9:11pm
Its truely a mind-boggling hypocrisey for many here at the Nation complaining about some of the so-called callousness of others on Wellstones memorial.
Wellstone was by all accounts a good a decent man, who did the right thing as he saw it. I will not speak any harsh word about him.
But I find it utterly astounding how some here at the Nation can in one sentence praise Wellstone's 3rd anniversery death, while a mere day after Chief Justice Reinhquest's death, an entire story prominently featured, was penned ripping the recently departed Chief Justice over opinions they disagree with, truly remarkable.
God Bless Wellstone and his memory, RIP
Posted by CPT at 09/20/2005 @ 9:18pm
LIBSARENUTTY, do you realize that reposting an article in full is illegal without permission from the copyright holder? Why don't you respect people's property rights and post a link?
Posted by Guiles at 09/20/2005 @ 9:18pm
I fully concur with ILP. SJCHERMAK must think "better ideas to that would actually help people" means chaining them to assembly lines to be overworked and underpaid. Or perhaps not affording them to right to vote. Ahhh, the good old days...when you could count on two hands the number of men that ran the country through their corporate empires built on little or no regulation.
But SJCHERMAK don't dispare, over the Boy King's 8 years he will do his level best to put on display for the world to see those "better ideas." The poor and working class are being "propelled" alright...propelled as far away from the American dream and the upper class as fast as economically possible.
Hopefully the American people will have enough by 2008 and realize progressive ideals are in their best interest. Regular, common, everyday people do not benefit from unbridled corporate tyranny. Until enough "conservatives" have their jobs taken away, or feel they are being unappreciated and underpaid, they will continue to belief the myth that their good is linked to the good of multinational corporations.
Posted by BLUETEXAN 09/20/2005 @ 8:17pm
Bluetexan and others who agree with his post I am constantly amazed by your postings. Either you prefer to write in hyperbole, or you are ignorant of true conservative beliefs (and Blue, I don't want to hear your Texas stereotypes).
Modern conservatism does not:
1. condone racism
2. believe in perpetuating poverty, or "chaining workers to assembly lines, or underpaying (who determines that status?)
3. believe women are second-class citizens
4. believe in "corporate tyranny" (which doesn't even exist) or the so-called good of multinational corporations.
5. taking away anyone's legitimate right to vote (although personally I would like to see some kind of constitutional literacy test to be allowed to vote for national candidates (House, Senate, Presidency)
6. We don't believe in ignoring the plight of the helpless. We just believe that the Federal government has no real legitimacy on a constitutional basis for expending the public treasury in that manner (and neither did the founding fathers). States have broad powers to carry out such work. But the private sector of faith based and secular nonprofit organizations and individual acts of charity are much more effective, and add the point of maintaining human bonding which is essential for mankind.
7. Just as many of our forefathers (including my own great-great grandfather) fought to end slavery, so today, conservatives like myself seek to change people's lives and thinking to remove them from the vicious cycle of poverty that was perpetuated by Roosevelt and Johnson and their attempts to phase in socialism in the U.S.
If any of you have had any lengthy experience with people living in the projects and the mindset that has overtaken the vast majority of those caught in it's trap, you will understand why Federal handouts have done very little except to create generational poverty.
So, Blue and others, get off the high horse of liberal elitism and try to discover what most conservatives in this great nation really think.
Also, we are mindless lemmings when it comes to Bush. I disagree strongly with him on the size of Federal Spending, the lack of effort in strengthening our borders, his pushing of Fed involvement in education, his lack of political will to just take out the terrorists with a massive use of force, the continued relationship with the UN and NATO, just to name a few. But I stay with him because he is way better than the rest of the field on either political side in my estimation.
Posted by love liberty at 09/20/2005 @ 9:27pm
I think both the views expressed by SJCHERMAK ("we have tried it your way for over 40 years), and by GUILES ("In the last 25 years "conservatives" (Republicans anyway) have been in charge of the executive branch of the Federal government.....") are an attempt to point fingers using an overly simplified arguement.
It seems to me that there is a complex interaction that continually occurs between Federal policy decisions (taxes, trade, regulations, etc.), State policies (taxes, investment incentives, robustness of the educational system, etc.), some local policies, and certainly the influence that individuals and local leaders have on their own local communities "culture". These interactions drive results relative to jobs, poverty, class differences, community spirit, the so-called "welfare mentality", etc.
I live in the south where in many circumstances states and communities have effectively partnered with "multinationals" (appartently loathed and feared by some on this board). These multinationals have invested billions and created tens of thousands of jobs (hopefully not "chaining" people to assembly lines). We cannot fear the capitalist approach. If you take away a companies primary purpose which is to make money for the owners, then none of this happens. As long as companies "do the right thing" (an important point) while they are making money, everything is good. Where the "powers that be" in states and local communities figure out these complex interactions well, I think it has a positive ripple effect within the communities. I am a manager in one of these multinational's factories, and the people that work for me and others I know in the community don't give a rip what happens inside the beltway. Things are far from perfect, but success breeds success. Instead of making broad , grand standing statements about whose policies at the federal level have caused the countries' problems, let's encourage more of our leaders to figure out these complex federal, state, and community interactions.
Just my two cents.
Posted by averageguy at 09/20/2005 @ 9:52pm
LL - We are awestruck my your Modern conservatism manifesto. It sounds suspiciously like some compassionate conservatism. Let's do some parsing here.
1. We don't condone racism - a bit different from embracing equality for all, but hey it's a start maybe.
2. We don't want to perpetuate poverty - again, not the strongest statement. I mean we don't want to do it, but shit happens, right?
3. We don't believe women are 2nd class citizens - bravo, there's a courageous stand. I'm sure your chattel (of the feminine variety) are glad to make it out of steerage.
4. We don't believe in something that doesn't exist - that seems like a good thing - nor do we believe in the good of multinationals - oh, oh, not sure what that's all about. You don't believe multinationals are good? Or what? Need clarification.
5. We don't take away folk's legitimate right to vote, though perhaps knowledge of the constitution should be a prerequisite. Kind of makes you wonder what "legitimate" means in this context.
6. We don't believe in ignoring the helpless. Except the Federal gov't should ignore them. Maybe the states too. But churches, private sector outfits and individuals, now you're talking, because they can bond with the helpless, so essential for mankind. You know maybe they could just bond and forego things like prescription drugs, food, shelter, these are inessential.
7. Something about conservatives strong history of fighting slavery, changing people's lives, breaking the poverty cycle, fighting socialists like Roosevelt and Johnson, something something something.
This manifesto adds up to absolutely nothing. Based on your lengthy experience in the projects, how is your conservative agenda going to break these folks out of the trap? Why has the poverty rate gone up, not down, under this administration? Why are there more folks without health insurance? Why are there fewer manufacturing jobs?
I know you meant to say that you aren't mindless lemmings, so I will spare you the obvious joke. Do you really believe that if Federal spending had been cut, rather than vastly increased, if our borders were strengthened, if the Feds bowed out of education, if we vastly increased military responses to terrorism (whatever that would mean), if we dropped out of the UN and NATO, that the US would be better off? Do you seriously believe that? If so, then you are more of a fool than I already think you are, based on this "modern conservatism" manifesto.
Posted by Fishbite at 09/20/2005 @ 10:14pm
The basis for much discussion on both sides of the political spectrum regarding poverty center around what I consider faulty if not bogus statistics.
How do we currently measure poverty in the U.S.? We (both sides) use several key statistics, including the Census Bureau Population Survey, Home Ownership rates, Unemployment, and Labor Statistics.
All of these have their good points and their limitations. The Census Bureau poverty rate as indicated below is based upon a survey of 100,000 households. That is outrageous to use as an accurate indicator this important measure. It is also bogus because it only reflects their response on level of income and doesn't take into consideration additional factors that could diminish or improve their standard of living within their specific community.
The estimates on poverty, level of insurance and income are based on supplements to the bureau's Current Population Survey, and are conducted over three months, beginning in February, at about 100,000 households nationwide.
Here is the Sept 1997 Report from the Clinton Admin(based upon the same time in office as Bush). You can form you own judgments (but please try for some objectivity).
Income Improves, Poverty Levels Stabilize, Health Insurance Coverage Slips, Census Bureau Reports
Median household income increased in real terms between 1995 and 1996 for the second consecutive year, while the poverty rate and the number of people living in poverty remained statistically unchanged and the number of uninsured Americans, particularly children, rose, according to three reports released today by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau.
The reports, "Money Income in the United States: 1996;" "Poverty in theUnited States: 1996;"
and "Health Insurance Coverage: 1996," also include data for states. Both the income and poverty reports have additional data on the valuation of noncash benefits.
Daniel Weinberg, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, said the number of poor Americans in 1996 totaled 36.5 million, representing 13.7 percent of the nation's total population.
Weinberg said, neither figure was significantly different from the previous year's estimate. In 1996, the average poverty threshold for a family of four was $16,036.
On the health-care front, the number of uninsured children under 18 grew to 10.6 million (14.8 percent) in 1996; both the number and percentage were statistically higher than the 1995 figures of 9.8 million and 13.8 percent, respectively. Overall, an estimated 41.7 million, or 15.6 percent, of Americans had no health insurance during all of 1996. This number was up 1.1 million from the previous year, but the percentage was not statistically different.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb97-162.html
Comparison of 1996 vs 2004:
Poverty:
Children: 1996 20.5% 2004 17.8%
Elderly: 1996 10.8% 2004 9.8%
Hispanics: 1996 23.3% 2004 21.9%
African Americans: 1996: 22.4% 2004 24.7%
Americans without health care insurance:
1996: 15.6%
2004: 15.7%
But, as I said, these statistics while not giving total satisfaction to either argument remain inconclusive as to the real picture of poverty in the US. I am not saying that poverty is not a problem. We who are blessed at any level should help others achieve a better tomorrow. I am only suggesting that the level, the causes and the solutions are far more complex than the typical arguments here, or by the politicians.
Posted by love liberty at 09/20/2005 @ 10:17pm
Plain Bruce - What patronizing horseshit! You tell 'em, Bruce baby, how dare they spend your tax money on video games. Of course, the way you spend your rightfully earned money is no business of anybody's. You want poor folks to spend money wisely on children's shoes (not Air Jordans of course) and school books? Turn off the flood of consumerist propoganda that streams non-stop from every media source, now including in the schools. Our economy runs on the the BS corporate logo products bought by everybody (made abroad of course), whether they're on the dole or on the tit of god knows what corporation or, horrors, government entity.
Posted by Fishbite at 09/20/2005 @ 10:20pm
Fishbite, I was hoping for something at least at a junior high level of debate. Perhaps I set the bar too high? All you did was continue the stereotypes indicating that you may lack the processing skills to separate perception from reality.
Also see my response at 10:17pm regarding poverty.
Posted by love liberty at 09/20/2005 @ 10:21pm
will return in a little while...have an errand.
Posted by love liberty at 09/20/2005 @ 10:26pm
LL - I believe it's been posted before that comparing 1996 to 2000 for poverty stats is deceitful. The poverty numbers dropped each year of Clinton's administration, they've been going up each year of Bush's. Why don't you try some objectivity for a change? Yeah, it's really complicated, all those numbers, levels, and boy the solutions are complex. Just don't start out with a false premise that things are pretty much the same now as they've been in the past. That is incorrect and since this has been pointed out before, it feels like more willful deceit on your part.
Posted by Fishbite at 09/20/2005 @ 10:28pm
FISHBITE - what have been the primary driving forces for the poverty rate going up each year under Bush? To what extent do you think it has been policy, tax, and priority changes made by Bush starting in 2001 versus the 9/11 impact on the economy?
Posted by averageguy at 09/20/2005 @ 10:35pm
SJCHERMAK and LL, so we (the United States) should be progressive up to a point, and then be conservative to maintain the status quo? At all points in history, I'm sure conservatives have thought, "Gee, I'm glad we've made the progress we've made...even though I was against it, but now that we are up to this point, we should stop. I think everyone has enough rights and its starting to look like its to their detriment. So everyone just calm down and let good old conservative values save the day."
LL, I am well aware of what conservatives mean by "true conservative beliefs." Being that I am nestled up here in the "home" state of Georgie, I've seen up close the disaster "true conservative beliefs" can lead to...he was our govenor before he was the president. And no, I'm not some peace-nik, Austin hippie...I've spent time in many a conservative, evangelical churches and have seen the destruction by "true conservative beliefs" of the denomination I grew up in (Baptist). "True conservative beliefs" are for the status quo and if this discourse were happening 100 years ago, you'd be trying to convince me that women and minorities really don't want the right to vote, that child labor slaves are essential to a good economy. Don't try to tell me that all of the sudden conservatives have changed, because either you are tying to fool me or you yourself have been fooled.
And this one I can't go without calling out, you as a "modern conservative" you don't "believe in "corporate tyranny" (which doesn't even exist) or the so-called good of multinational corporations." Perhaps you haven't visited K Street? Feel free to do some research about K Street and then get back to me on that one...or is the current government not practicing "true conservative beliefs"?
True Conservative Belief = $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/20/2005 @ 10:37pm
Is it just me, or do these guys like LOVE LIBERTY, LIBSARENUTTY (whom I assume is just LIBSARENUTS with a souped up new name), ALUDRA et al. just love to cut crap off of Free Republic and post it on here? Do they not know how to formulate an argument on their own, instead choosing to parrot their party line?
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2005 @ 10:46pm
AVERAGEGUY, you can't possibly believe 9/11 has anything to do with the poverty rate. If so, then "the terrorist have already won!" (oft quoted phrase used by conservatives in response to those who expressed reluctance to go on already planned vacations..."get on down to Disneyworld"). And any spending on Iraq does not count towards 9/11's effect on the nations well-being. The Iraq War was of the choosing of this Administration and has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I'm beginning to think had 9/11 not happened, we'd still have ended up going to war with Iraq. Of course, had 9/11 not happened, we would probably be enjoying a new president right now because what would Georgie have run on? Remember what was accomplished before 9/11? Nada. He wouldn't have been able to use the old "can't change ships in midstream" BS that was the foundation for his second run.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/20/2005 @ 10:55pm
BLUETEXAN:
I don't think he knows about Texas having the worst air quality, or the $18Billion Texas lost ($7.5 Bil surplus when Ann Richards left office, 11.5bil deficit when he left office, in the most successful economic environment in US history), or the fact that TX schools are the worst in the nation... and on and on and on. All due to Bush. Why can I blame Bush? Because these were not the case before he took office. My parents live in Fredericksburg, near AUS/SA, and now they want to move again, because Texas has gone down the toilet since they moved there a decade ago... this, from die-hard life-long Republicans. The tide is turning. Bush and his ilk just don't know it yet.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2005 @ 10:58pm
PLAIN BRUCE:
My parents were the same way. However, one major issue you are missing. I don't know how it is where you live, but here in Pittsburgh, I have seen very few families who can afford to live off of one income. Most families I know must have 2 breadwinners just to put food on the table (and gas in the tanks, since 2 weeks ago, gas hit $3.60/gal...). To make the claim that all families have to do is be more frugal is missing the point entirely. Most families I know (and I know a lot, seeing as I am a financial planner, and I help then make these plans) don't conspicuously consume. They go to Wal-Mart, because that's all they can afford, they are trying to make ends meet because the tax burden is so great on them. Maybe all the people you know have jobs where they make $100k/yr. Here in Pittsburgh, the median income is somewhere around $32000 for a family of 4. That's before taxes. You tell me how that's right... you can't, because it isn't. Not in a country where we pride ourselves on being so "good" and "charitable", but when it comes to truly giving, we fall far short... or just give everything to large corporations in the form of tax breaks and subsidies... or no-bid contracts.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2005 @ 11:05pm
MATTHEWG,
In response to your posting, I think the fact there has been no improvement in poverty in this country, since the inception of the Great Society, despite the massive amounts of money put towards the problem, is a pretty clear indication of a lack of a tangible result.
No conservative wants to deny help to people that need help, but somehow the help welfare recipients have received over the years does not seem to propel them to self-sufficiency. In fact, the way the system works, people who attempt to rise above it actually lose benefits and wind up worse off. This is one reason why I say they are "enslaved" by the current system. They are also "enslaved" because they are trapped in a culture that seems to encourage dependency rather than self-reliance.
Many people on the left think of solutions to problems such as this in terms of what government programs should exist to solve the problem, but sorry, a significant part of this has to do with attitudes and culture. I know those things don't feed a hungry child but it plays an important part.
As I surf liberal websites, I see an awful lot of incitement of "class warfare" by those writing and posting blogs. Encouraging people to be bitter, angry and envious of those better off is just simply not going to get them anywhere in life. It's just going to guarantee that the situation will keep repeating itself. It seems that what the current culture does not do is give people any kind of hope or inspiration that there is opportunity in this country and that you might be able to improve your situation if you give it a try. People are encouraged, by liberalism, to look for what they are owed or entitled to in life to make up for past wrongs.
Education plays an important part, and the left has made a mess of public education. This is true everywhere but the effects are worse in areas of poverty. Kids go to schools where lousy teachers can't be fired because of teacher's unions and teacher tenure (due to liberalism), where good teachers can't be rewarded with merit pay (liberalism won't allow this), where kids don't receive any real discipline anymore (at a time in their lives where this is very important), where the curriculums have been dumbed-down (liberal educators think all kinds of awareness and understanding and tolerance and sex education are more important than the three R's) and where the story of America is rarely put in a positive light anymore (which, if it were, might give kids inspiration that you can make it in this country). Money to improve infrastructure won't correct these flaws. And when conservatives, faced with no near term ability to do anything about this, propose vouchers as a way to get some kids a decent education, they are crucified as "trying to destroy public education"
Now, to make it clear, I am not advocating that no assistance should be given people. But just dumping money in and creating program after program doesn't work either. And I hear all the time from the left how everything has been cut back and how this is wrong, etc., but the reality is that that the Great Society is alive and well today- the massive spending on this has continued no matter what party has been in the White House. To paint Republicans as cold-hearted is totally unfair and is not backed up by the facts.
I don't claim to have all the solutions to what is a very complex problem, not at all. It is just my belief that a lot of these attitude and cultural issues play as important a part as monetary assistance.
And here is where I would have to take issue- big time – with your remark that "Claiming that the more liberal view has been dominant during this period is incorrect; as long as I can recall being politically conscience". The liberal view, since the early 60's, has in many ways remade our entire society, and not always for the better, especially with regard to the poverty question. This liberal view, which came about independent of any question of poverty, now totally dominates our culture, with those who oppose it having had no say in the matter. God has gone out of public life, our media (television, movies, etc.) are totally obsessed with sex, personal responsibility is not encouraged, etc. The problem with regard to poverty is the adoption of this culture has a negative effect on the prospects of those in poverty rising above it. It practically guarantees that government programs directed at eradicating poverty will fail.
MATTHEWG, you wanted more detail from me, and this has been my attempt at it. I hope this has answered some of your concerns.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/20/2005 @ 11:13pm
JORCHEIM...welcome to my nightmare: the failed "true conservative" experiment. If "true conservativism" is so great, then why aren't all the "true conservatives" flocking to the "true conservative" states? Oh what's that you say? No jobs. Mmmmmmmm. Interesting.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/20/2005 @ 11:15pm
BLUETEXAN:
The answer to your vexing question... is a multifaceted one.
No jobs... No clean water... No clean air... No decent infrastructure...
etc.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2005 @ 11:21pm
SJCHERMAK,
There are some things you stated in your last post that I can agree with, I do think there is a tendency for people to get stuck in the welfare culture. But I don't believe that just any kid from the ghetto can get up one day and say, "I'm going to start the next Wal-Mart." This is the expectation I hear from conservatives..."if they want to get out then DO something." With what? What education do they have to go on. And your blaming "liberalism" for the failure of schools is a hoot. How about lack of funding for education. Merit based pay for teachers...that sounds like a great idea. Unions aren't going to be what stops that, its cash. Where is the cash? Given away in tax cuts. Here in Texas, school finance reform has morphed into a property tax relief cruseade. Huh? How did it go from let's help kids to lets help businesses and expensive homeowners? The conservative answer to the education crisis is the free market. Well, we see where that got us. The charter schools are bombing left and right here in Texas. But charter schools were never designed to succeed. School vouchers are simply designed to further destroy public schools, so conservatives can stand back and say, "see told you public schools don't work!"
Don't you think every American child deserves a top rate education? I'm sure you do, as do I. Well, that's not going to be free. We all need to decided that public education is one of the, if not THE, beginning point for reducing poverty. We CAN do better. Both liberals and conservatives need to step up to the plate and agree that nothing comes before education...not even business. Until then, we will continue to wallow in schools that wouldn't be acceptable in third world countries.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/20/2005 @ 11:28pm
SJCHERMAK:
I wish I had the energy to tear your post apart the way it deserves, but alas, I had a long day at work, and you will simply have to count your blessings, for fate has truly shined upon you this day. However, I will blast you one parting shot.
Class warfare is being and has been waged by the wealthy against the middle and lower classes from time immemorial. The simple fact of the matter is, when the tax code is adjusted to grant those who already have wealth even more ways to get around paying taxes, that is class warfare. When some major corporation is bailed out because the CEO was able to circumvent proper accounting processes due to their relationship with various elected officials (think Ken Lay, Neil Bush, the Keating Five, etc etc) that is class warfare. The middle and lower classes, the people who pay the BULK of tax revenues, are getting raped, pillaged, and left as carrion for the next vulture of industry to peck at.
Class warfare? You don't know the half of it. For this country to have as many working poor as it does, when we are by far the wealthiest nation on the planet... THAT, my friend, is class warfare. When women, 80 years after they gained the right to vote, still don't make equal pay for equal work, that's class warfare. When, 150 years after slavery and 40 years after segregation, people of color still are discriminated against, that, my friend, is class warfare. So how dare you get upset with Progressives when we call for open class warfare. Just be glad it's not France circa 1785. If you aren't careful, it may soon be.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/20/2005 @ 11:39pm
All this talk by Red State reactionaries about "personal responsibility." And they wonder why we think they're dim bulbs. All around, every day, maddeningly, constantly, we see the heroes of the Right evading responsibility. The hypocrisy is monumental. "That layabout would rather sit home and collect welfare than go out and get a real job!" The oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries engage in collusion and gouging. "Oh, that's just human nature." (Actual in-context quote from a life-long Republican) Enron, in cahoots with bankers and energy companies around the country, engineers a fake energy crisis and the Wall Street Journal proclaims that it's because there are not enough power plants. The S&L scandal was only made possible by the wholesale participation of the banking, accounting, and real estate industries, abetted by paid-off conservative politicians. Presidential pardons for an array of shady rightwing politicians and businessmen who desperately pull the highest strings to avoid taking responsibility. Tom DeLay arm-twisting his Republican colleagues to change House rules so that he can avoid the consequences of his corruption. We are not talking about a few bad apples not taking responsibility, we are referring to the whole goddammed barrel. Until conservatives show proportionate outrage at the panoply of greed and corruption with which their boys rule this country, I'm afraid their appalling attention to the foibles of the poor will continue to nauseate all decent citizens.
Posted by bookmanjb at 09/20/2005 @ 11:46pm
Also, we are mindless lemmings when it comes to Bush...
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 09/20/2005 @ 9:27pm
A Freudian slip?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/20/2005 @ 11:55pm
Don't you think every American child deserves a top rate education? I'm sure you do, as do I. Well, that's not going to be free. We all need to decided that public education is one of the, if not THE, beginning point for reducing poverty. We CAN do better. Both liberals and conservatives need to step up to the plate and agree that nothing comes before education...not even business. Until then, we will continue to wallow in schools that wouldn't be acceptable in third world countries.
Posted by BLUETEXAN 09/20/2005 @ 11:28pm
I'm repeating an old argument but the Federal government has no right to be involved in education. There is no authority for it in the constitution. If states want to have public education, that is their right and they can establish the means of funding it.
At all the churches I speak at, I constantly urge them to pull their children out of the public education system and home school them. You may have all the public education you want, but I will promote a healthier alternative, at whatever the cost it takes us.
How do you really eliminate poverty? It cannot be done according to Jesus who said "the poor you have with you always". Why, because of sin.
To diminish the number of those in poverty you have to:
1. Make parents responsible for having and raising children
2. Have parents raise children to respect authority (especially parental).
3. Have families actually make education a priority (like the Asian families do). When I lived in Taiwan, they went to the extreme with resultant high childhood suicide rates. Children lived to get their education all the way through college. A child who failed in school shamed their family. But the principle of the family unit making education a priority stands.
4. A home computer should be a priority ahead of all other non essential purchases. No big screen TV, no $150 shoes, no $2000 car sound system until the kids have the tools to succeed. And don't try and tell me this isn't the truth in most if not a vast majority of poverty homes. I see it all the time when we go to take food or other help to poor families. Even in many who don't have those luxuries, I still see mom or dad or both, smoking their $10 a day in cigarettes and never lacking a six pack or a bottle in many homes. Not wanting to sacrifice for their children.
5. Develop community support structure, whether my preference for faith based or other. It is at the community level where families still can receive the greatest impact from moral, financial, and emotional support, instruction, and caring. Not some bureaucrats in Washington.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 12:00am
Also, we are mindless lemmings when it comes to Bush...
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 09/20/2005 @ 9:27pm
A Freudian slip?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 09/20/2005 @ 11:55pm
no, just old arthritic hands that sometimes lag behind my thoughts and never catch up. Or maybe its old thoughts that never catch up to my hands?
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 12:04am
Fishbite, I was hoping for something at least at a junior high level of debate...
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 09/20/2005 @ 10:21pm
I suppose this explains your comment impugning the Census Bureau for their sample size, which was more than reasonable from a statistical viewpoint. Certainly not "outrageous," as you described it, but that's junior high for you :-)
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 12:05am
PLAIN BRUCE, did you need your black college professor to explain black culture for you? Are you that out of touch with reality? Perhaps so, since you missed the same thing happening in the white, hispanic, asian, etc. communities. How many recent WHITE college grads with entry level jobs do I see driving BMWs, Volvos, Expeditions, Navigators, Hummers? Can they afford it? No. Do you call attention to it? No. Why not? Is it because its less obvious? Do you not pay attention to what other white follks are doing, because you are one (and that is a guess on my part, but not much of a risky one since you are conservative)? How many white people declare bankruptcy? Do you think that's far? Since they made their bed they should lie in it right? How many white people are swimming in debt to finance their lifestyles, how many will never pay it all off. Where is your outrage there? "But they aren't spending MY money" you say. Not true. You're tax dollars will come into play at somepoint to help bail them out, if not that, then they are guilty of not saving enough for retirement or health care and your tax dollars will be at work taking care of them when they reach retirement with not a penny to show for it.
So let's be a little more cautious blaming the "welfare queens" for society's woes before taking a closer look at the dilemma of Americans of all races, cultures and status.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 12:06am
Love Liberty,
Please take your home school garbage and scat. The Constitution doesn't say anything about education...so what!! The Constitution also says presidents can't start wars, only Congress has that authority. Last I checked that wasn't being followed.
I've heard your tired old arguements against public schools before (and I've witnessed the very same thing from my preacher, uncle...who homeschooled and private schooled my cousins...it has taken them years to become functioning members of society). Becasue you don't believe the Constitution is a living document (and you probably don't think the Bible is one either), you'll never understand your responsiblity to your fellow citizens to take part in creating a better country through a shared burden.
I'd hate to see what would have happened to this country had your politcal philosophy been in charge during the pivotal points in this countries history. We'd still be an English colony.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 12:13am
LL,
One thing I wanted to emphasis...we live in today. Not 1776. To your dismay, we aren't going to go back to 1776. So live with it, why don't you try to come up with solutions that work in 2005. Trying to eliminate the federal governments role in education is not an option. So why don't you come out of your compound (is yours the one down from the Davidians'?) and work with what is at hand instead of living in dream land.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 12:17am
How do you really eliminate poverty? It cannot be done according to Jesus who said "the poor you have with you always". Why, because of sin.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 09/21/2005 @ 12:00am
I think you do a disservice to Christ's grasp of economics. Until everyone makes the same wages (which will never happen) you will always have some rich at the top and poor at the bottom. Many things, when analyzed, can be approximated statistically by a normal distribution, also known as Gaussian (to physicists) or the "Bell curve" for social scientists.
The majority of incomes will be close to the mean, but some will be at either end of the curve (in small numbers). By simply applying the law of supply and demand, one can see that demand will be determined by people with incomes that are higher than the low-income levels of some people, thus pricing those low-income wage earners into poverty, even if they work an honest day for their low pay.
Nothing to do with sin there.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 12:19am
"How do you really eliminate poverty? It cannot be done according to Jesus who said "the poor you have with you always". Why, because of sin."
Sin isn't something that is addressed in the Constitution. So that isn't going to try and stop us Americans from trying to eliminate poverty. Perhaps you could go start a country where the Bible is the Constitution maybe they can carve out some land for you in Afghanistan. I'm sure the Taliban would love to have some like-minded neighbors.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 12:19am
Oh yeah, LL, one more thing...Sorry about the arthritis.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 12:20am
LL,
You forgot the second part of your "For you always have the poor" Which would be, "...and whenever you will, you can do good to them." Shame on you, you claim to be a minister but you misrepresent the text. This text has zero to do with sin. Stop misleading those fellow bloggers who don't have a detailed understanding of the Bible (or don't care to). So go and find a new verse that you can use to justify poverty.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 12:45am
LL,
One thing I wanted to emphasis...we live in today. Not 1776. To your dismay, we aren't going to go back to 1776. So live with it, why don't you try to come up with solutions that work in 2005. Trying to eliminate the federal governments role in education is not an option. So why don't you come out of your compound (is yours the one down from the Davidians'?) and work with what is at hand instead of living in dream land.
Posted by BLUETEXAN 09/21/2005 @ 12:17am
Blue,
For some reason you ignored my point that the individual states have all the power and authority to establish public schools. That makes your argument a non sequitor.
Given that you have all the power and authority for each state to do this, why do you need to have the Federal government step into an area that is not meant for it to have? And please don't attempt the conformity argument. The appropriate role is for the citizens of each state to determine the type of education system if any they want and it's structure.
There is a reason why we are the United States of America and not the State of America.
My home school option is quite reliable and real. My kids did great in college with a home school education. I have two nephews who graduated with honors from college with a home school education. A niece 15 who already has 20 units of college completed while home schooling.
HSLDA News May 30, 2003
Homeschoolers Shine at National Competitions
Once again, homeschoolers have shown the world how dedicated parents can achieve academic success with their children.
On May 22, eighth-grader James Williams of Vancouver, Washington, became the second homeschooler in a row to place first in the National Geography Bee. James answered the question, "Goa, a state in southwestern India, was a possession of what country until 1961?" James' correct answer, "Portugal," netted him a $25,000 scholarship and a lifetime subscription to National Geographic magazine.
On May 29, homeschooled eighth-grader Evelyn Blacklock from Tuxedo Park, New York, placed second in the National Spelling Bee. The word that finally tripped her up? "Gnathonic," which means sycophantic or fawning. In spite of missing out on first place, Evelyn still took home a $6,000 cash prize.
"Success in these kinds of competitions is a logical extension of good academics," says Michael Smith, President of Home School Legal Defense Association. "The achievement of these homeschoolers shows that their parents have provided excellent academic instruction."
The impact of homeschooling in these academic competitions goes beyond students who win. Although homeschoolers make up approximately 2 percent of the U.S. school-age population, they made up 12 percent of the 251 spelling bee finalists and 5 percent of the 55 geography bee finalists. Three of the past seven spelling bee winners have been homeschooled. Last year's homeschooled winner of the geography bee was 10 years old, the youngest in that event's history.
There were an estimated 1,700,000 to 2,100,000 children (grades K-12) home educated during 2002-2003 in the United States. Homeschooling appears to still be the fastest-growing form of education." – Brian D. Ray, Ph.D., Facts on Homeschoooling *
Home education has constantly grown over the last two decades. The growth rate is 7% to 15% per year, according to Dr. Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute (Worldwide Guide to Homeschooling).
Home school students do exceptionally well when compared with the nationwide average. In every subject and at every grade level of the ITBS and TAP batteries, home school students scored significantly higher than their public and private school counterparts
On average, home school students in grades 1–4 perform one grade level higher than their public and private school counterparts. The achievement gap begins to widen in grade 5; by 8th grade the average home school student performs four grade levels above the national average
http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/rudner1999/Rudner2.asp
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 12:49am
LL, So you made your children hide their light under a bushel, instead of shining like a city on a hill shines? They aren't allowed to be examples until they are 18?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 12:57am
spelling bees and geography bees!
Big deal.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 01:04am
home schooling requires at least one parent to be home with the children.
People gotta work to afford their children.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 01:07am
SJ
"We can start by electing Conservatives to office who will pursue policies that will give people in poverty hope, opportunity and a future"
When do you guys plan on starting this? Sure aren't seeing much with the current roles in the GOP run DC. Its all about BIG BUSINESS and how ya'll can make them happy. Making a PT economy, legislation that leads to more outsourcing overseas, and attempts at restricting abortion while contracting public assistance programs are probably not viewed as positive values by the poor. Neither is pandering to insurance and credit companies (the new Bankruptcy bill which goes into effect in a couple of weeks). And let us not forgot the continuing neglect of environmental regulation compliance which is related to having ANY future at a very fundamental level...shall I go on?
You see, one thing Libs have a fair handle on is a realistic perspective on the poor (OK, not Kennedy or Kerry perhaps) but I would wager most urban poor ARE Dems! Thus we have an integral "feel" for social welfare, while the big business conservatives do what feels right for the rich. At some level I suppose that is natural. However, helping the poor helps everyone in the long run while helping the rich...well, it helps the rich and they probably don't need it quite as much.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/21/2005 @ 01:10am
LOVELIBERTY--With regard to your statement: "How do you really eliminate poverty? It cannot be done according to Jesus who said "the poor you have with you always". Why, because of sin." A few comments.
First, I fail to see why Jesus' words should hold any greater weight with regard to economics than any economic thinker's. Not that I've heard too many economists saying that poverty can be eliminated, but it seems that arguments based on supply and demand might be a bit more convincing.
Second, if I read your post correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to equate poverty with sin in some manner...possibly as a result (I thought damnation was supposed to be the wage of sin)? I find this implausible...actually, I'm going to assume that I've just misinterpreted your comments, but if I didn't I'd be curious to hear you defend this position.
Finally, though I don't know the context of the "the poor you have with you always," it seems that this could easily be interpreted to be more of an instruction on where your loyalties should lie. Just a thought (which I suppose could be expanded on, but would probably get me branded as a practitioner of "class warfare").
MG
Posted by matthewg at 09/21/2005 @ 01:11am
LL...
re: "home schooling" I have no doubt your kids are well versed int he basics. You seem quite literate and all, and I do not mean to sound accusatory, but how about areas of "national concern" like the sciences? Often times, home schoolers get left behind in these areas because they are a bit more "specialized" (or technical perhaps)...like the scientific method, history of the Earth, Chemistry / Physics / Astronomy. Studies indicate that the US is falling ever behind in the sciences...and the sciences are what drives the wheels of progress.
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/21/2005 @ 01:16am
You forgot the second part of your "For you always have the poor" Which would be, "...and whenever you will, you can do good to them." Shame on you, you claim to be a minister but you misrepresent the text. This text has zero to do with sin. Stop misleading those fellow bloggers who don't have a detailed understanding of the Bible (or don't care to). So go and find a new verse that you can use to justify poverty.
Posted by BLUETEXAN 09/21/2005 @ 12:45am
Blue,
I might have done exactly that if that were either the context or what I had done.
You were refering to Mark's record of the same event as Matthew records without Mark's additional words, in which he states that Jesus also said as you have semi correctly stated, "and whenever you wish, you may do them good; but Me you do not have always". Mark 14:7 as also stated by John (12:6-8).
The translation you cite is poorly structured, missing both the grammar and the context. Even the Jerusalem (Catholic) and the NIV Bibles correctly reflect both the grammar and the context that selling the oil to use for the poor could be done at anytime, His time was coming to an end, thus the preciousness of her act.
Jesus was commenting on the woman who poured the fragant oil on his head. He rebuked the disciples for not understanding the situation (His approaching death). As John tells us, it was Judas who made this statement, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief.
Secondly, I did not say the text had anything to do with sin. I pointed out that Jesus Himself said there will always be those who are poor. I then gave the primary reason for poverty existing. I suppose I could have made that sentence stand as a separate paragraph, but that still would not have guaranteed someone misunderstanding the context.
Lastly, Jesus did not just use those words idly; they are a reference to Deuteronomy 15:11 "For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, "You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy in your land".
Christians have an obligation to help the poor. But it was never intended to be directed that we relegate our personal responsibility over to governments.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 01:25am
home schooling requires at least one parent to be home with the children.
People gotta work to afford their children.
Posted by URMYGYRO 09/21/2005 @ 01:07am
Therefore, you shouldn't have children until you can afford them. With my first child, I didn't even have insurance for the Dr. and hospital, was working and a full time student. I paid every week during the nine months until my son was born.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 01:29am
re: "home schooling" I have no doubt your kids are well versed int he basics. You seem quite literate and all, and I do not mean to sound accusatory, but how about areas of "national concern" like the sciences? Often times, home schoolers get left behind in these areas because they are a bit more "specialized" (or technical perhaps)...like the scientific method, history of the Earth, Chemistry / Physics / Astronomy. Studies indicate that the US is falling ever behind in the sciences...and the sciences are what drives the wheels of progress.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/21/2005 @ 01:16am
LOC,
good questions! In California (and I'm sure most if not all other states), the Home School program must be approved by the State and the results of periodic testing provided to the state. All of our kids had mandatory advanced math, Biology, Chemistry and Physics if they planned to attend college. For those not wanting to attend college, they had less math and just a basic intro to Physics.
Furthermore, recent studies show that 84% of Home School children use a computer which is 2 1/2 times the national average. Software and video labs are wonderful learning tools.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 01:45am
Second, if I read your post correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you seem to equate poverty with sin in some manner...possibly as a result (I thought damnation was supposed to be the wage of sin)? I find this implausible...actually, I'm going to assume that I've just misinterpreted your comments, but if I didn't I'd be curious to hear you defend this position. Posted by MATTHEWG 09/21/2005 @ 01:11am
Because of sin in the world, people and governments cheat others, steal from others, murder, and rape. Laziness is a sin, fathering and abandoning children is a sin, disobedience to parents and society; pursuing the lust of sex, alcohol, drugs, all these things bring into societies, individuals and families living in poverty. Some by their own actions, some by the actions of others.
It is also a sin to see someone in need and do nothing to help. So, as a Pastor, Prophet and Theologian, I have an obligation to speak rebuke to Christians who sin by not attending to those in need, and teaching them the full counsel of God in helping those in need.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 01:55am
LL:
your response didn't address my point. People have to work. At least one parent has to stay home for home schooling to take place.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 02:14am
LL:
your 1:55 post is quite possibly your most condescending post yet. And that's an accomplishment in arrogance, because 99% of your posts are condescending.
So you think you're a "prophet". That sums up your arrogance perfectly.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 02:20am
your response didn't address my point. People have to work. At least one parent has to stay home for home schooling to take place.
Posted by URMYGYRO 09/21/2005 @ 02:14am
The 2:20 post isn't even worth responding to.
What was non responsive about waiting to have children until you can afford them? My wife stayed home. My sister-in-law stayed home. What greater investment in your children can you make?
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 02:25am
LL:
How many dual-earner families exist that you think could certainly afford to have only one earner?
My 2:20 post was designed to get a response from you. It's simply the truth. Calling yourself a "prophet" is arrogant, especially for a religious person.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 02:29am
SJCHERMAK--Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. If I may continue the discussion...
My request for for more detail at this point would be for you to provide a justification that we have nothing to show for fourty years of liberal response (supposedly...more on this later) to the issue of poverty. I would be the first to acknowledge that the problem of poverty is pressing in America, but whether that points to a flaw in liberal methodology or failure to impliment it sufficiently is I think the real question at hand (I'm well aware of the often quoted definition of insanity--doing the same thing but expecting different results--but I don't think it really applies here). For example, your statement that we have nothing to show for the money we've spent on our welfare system is somewhat problematic because you don't provide, and I at least am not aware of, an appropriate counterexample. Poverty exists and is a problem, but would things be better now if we had a more laissez-faire approach than we currently do? (I would argue that we're already tilted futher toward the "less government" side than your claims that a liberal mindset has dominated for the last fourty years acknowledge...by way of justification I point again to any number of European societies.) I tend to think the answer is no, and point to pre-New Deal American society as a counterexample. I'm well aware that this is not a perfect analogy by any means, and if you or anyone is able to come up with a better one, I'd be interested to hear it.
Incidentally, I'm skeptical of your claim that the liberal view (at least with regard to social welfare) came about without regard to poverty. I don't think it's inaccurate to think of the New Deal as the starting point of modern American liberalism, with regard to social welfare again, which was very much motivated by a crisis of unemployment and resulting poverty. Of course, if my historical picture is inaccurate, I'd like to be enlightened.
Going further with the same comment, in which you write: "This liberal view, which came about independent of any question of poverty, now totally dominates our culture, with those who oppose it having had no say in the matter. God has gone out of public life, our media (television, movies, etc.) are totally obsessed with sex, personal responsibility is not encouraged, etc." I don't understand in what sense you think people who oppose the liberal view have no say. As has been noted, at least since Reagan there have been attacks on welfare as "government handouts" or some such, and the current political situation seems to be one in which those who disagree with the liberal view are exactly those in power. It wasn't that long ago that Social Security "reform" was the topic of the day. Those critical of the liberal view are hardly left out of the discussion. The other points you raise deserve comment, but I've gone on for too long already (same with the paragraph on education).
I guess my problems with your views are the following: First, you state without justification that the welfare system we have has done nothing to help poverty (I don't, by the way, disagree that there is a problem if one has a greater incentive to collect welfare checks than work, but this seems to be a problem with the formula used to calculate welfare instead of a more fundamental flaw with the concept of welfare). I'm sure that economists on both sides can argue one way or the other on this point; I'm reasonably ignorant of the arguments involved, but I'd like it if you'd say how you think we are to judge the success or failure of the program. Second, you effectively assert that conservatives have been left out of the decision making process, which I think is manifestly untrue. Finally, you conflate the policies that have been in place (resulting from the power struggle between our dominant parties) with the sort of proposals I as a self-proclaimed leftist would support, again as an example the article by Naomi Klein.
If you or anyone has a desire to address these points, I'd like to hear some analysis.
MG
Posted by matthewg at 09/21/2005 @ 02:34am
LL wrote:
"The 2:20 post isn't even worth responding to."
That was a response. The same way "no comment" is a comment. If it's truly not worth a response, don't respond.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 02:38am
My 2:20 post was designed to get a response from you. It's simply the truth. Calling yourself a "prophet" is arrogant, especially for a religious person.
Posted by URMYGYRO 09/21/2005 @ 02:29am
You are right in that this site was not a proper context to add that into. It requires much more in the way of knowledge of my ministry, the recognition first by many others in different ministries and organizations, and the general body of Christ. Finally, it is something no one can just take on as a title. It is a gift and office from God, at His will, not of any man.
I can only respond it is something well documented and attested to by the body of Christ. It is not said lightly or with anything less than total humility (which I hope you will understand).
However, as I stated, this was not the forum to interject that point. It is easily misconstrued as you rightfully pointed out.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 02:38am
Urmygryo,
BTW, my point previously on not responding dealt not with our last issue. It was to your point about being condescending, which I found to be rather puzzling.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 02:39am
Done for the night..thanks for good debate!
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 02:42am
LL claims to be a man of the people, speaking his opinions to benefit the people. Funny, then, that he advocates for separating your kids from the other kids of your community.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 02:43am
LL
Actually, my post should have read: "my 2:20 post was NOT designed to...". I don't care about your personal religious delusions.
However, I am intersted to see you back up your statements about home schooling. You conveniently ignored my question: "How many dual-earner families exist that you think could certainly afford to have only one earner?"
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 02:49am
JORCHEIM-
You made the statement when commenting about my remarks "The middle and lower classes, the people who pay the BULK of tax revenues"
Whoops! Error here!
Next time you go on the Internet, go to the IRS website and download data on tax revenue collected by income level. Then crunch the numbers yourself on your computer.
You will find out to your dismay that you are wrong! The wealthy pay most of the tax in this country!! That's just a simple fact.
Sorry to burst your bubble because you were enjoying yourself lecturing me, but these incorrect myths perpetuated by the left need to be pointed out and the truth provided whenever possible.
Posted by sjchermak at 09/21/2005 @ 05:30am
BLUE -
Looking back at my post, I did not mean to imply that 9/11 led to poverty. More accurately, I should have asked if the recession that started in late 2000 (and was amplified by the events of 9/11) had as much to do with increasing poverty levels as Bush's policies. I also do not think we can deny that the substantial drop in durable goods orders and capital spending immediately after 9/11 extended and worsened the recession, which increased poverty levels. I do not think this acknowledgement of economic events means that the terrorists have already won.
On the school topic, my own experience (as the proud parent of a third grader) makes my opinion easy to share. I live in an area that has a dramatic mix of students in our public school (both kids from wealthy families that live on a lake, and kids from significant poverty). The funding for school is probably too low, but in my opinion sufficient. The primary differentiator is the parents, not the money being spent in the school. I see many kids who are very poor getting a very good education because their parent(s) are very involved, I also see kids who "have it all" who flounder because the parents think it is completely up to the school to educate the kid.
Posted by averageguy at 09/21/2005 @ 06:15am
I would have to agree. My parents allowed me to find my own truths, and gave me plenty to read, and plenty of opportunities to find information. At the same time, they insisted on public school for one very excellent reason: It kept me in touch with society. Every, and I do mean EVERY home schooled child I've ever met has been a social nitwit. No grace, no etiquette, no understanding of the fine nuances of "how to not be an asshole to other people". Why? Well, in a public school, that will get the ever lovin shit kicked out of you. So they do oh-so-fine on spelling bees and math quizzes. So did I, and I was a latchkey child. My intelligence and emotional maturity put me in a whole other world from the other students, but through years of trying to connect, I can make myself understood, and even liked by a number of people. To contrast, we'll use the example of "Jake", whom I worked with for a fair long time. Jake was a privileged child, home-schooled, and worked in Daddy's restaurant, gaining that amazing in to the world of fine dining that's elsewise reserved for the hard-working individual. He was a lazy, arrogant prick, whom only was after two things: Looking good, and making a buck. Prettymuch how I view the neo-conservative movement, but that's another story. And Jake, this poor kid, was so warped by his strongly Christian home schooling, that he now deifies himself ("I'm the son of Apollo!), while at the same time unable to come to grips with his strongly homoerotic tendencies. I have no problem with him having them, but if he's going to try and feel me up after he's had a few, and then deny that he is attracted to men, then something is obviously out of whack.
So, yes, you can home school your children, and pamper them, but they're just as likely to turn into models of Jake the moment you turn your back as not. And while I'm sure he'll be a model worker for society, at the same time, he alienates every person he works with, and thus increases dissonance and dissatisfaction in the workplace. All for the almighty buck. All-e-fucking-leu-la.
Posted by Megido at 09/21/2005 @ 07:10am
Also, SJCHERMAK , I'd love to know just what numbers on the IRS government website you're referring to. After just 3 minutes, it seems that they have enough statistics to choke not one, but several horses with.
Posted by Megido at 09/21/2005 @ 07:18am
it's possible for the rich to pay most of the taxes and still not tp pay their fair share, simply because they have more money.
the rich win in several ways, they can afford high priced lawyers and accountants who can minimize their tax bills, and they have Bush to give them huge tax cuts, which unfortunately serve to bankrupt the country.
I'm still amazed at lower class, economically, rich wannabees are defending the privileges of the privileged
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 07:27am
All this "Libs against cons, and cons against libs" blogging is a waste of time. I would never suscribe to a media instrument I disagree with, only to get access to the blogs and start "a ideological cleansing" of the bloggers there commenting. We need conservative and liberal policies at the same time. But the bloggers here seem only to be excited with low profile demagogy. Go ahead, waste your time, but your time is wasted, tic, tac, tic, tac, tic, tac. Of course, if you earn your living as a paid blogger, please continue, as we do not want more unemployed
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 07:49am
JOHANNESROLF wrote: I'm still amazed at lower class, economically, rich wannabees are defending the privileges of the privileged
An intelligent conservative (no, don't laugh) with whom I used to spar about politics and economics told me once that he wanted to preserve all tax loopholes for the rich so that if, in the event he was to become wealthy (highly unlikely; he was a short-order cook), those loopholes would be available to him. This attitude colored all his economic opinions. It is amazing, I agree, that Red Staters vote so consistently against their best interests. If you haven't already, read Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter With Kansas?"
By the way, the silly canard that the rich pay more taxes cumulatively than the hoi polloi is just another beloved myth of the Right. It's only true if you add corporate taxes into the pot. As far as individuals are concerned, the amount of income taxes that the upper 10% pay is barely measurable as a percent of gross income taxes collected. This myth is right up there with "The poor don't want to work." and "They don't really love their children; they send them out to steal."
Posted by bookmanjb at 09/21/2005 @ 07:58am
good point areyouok, and bookmanjb. it is usually the right which is doctrinaire, with regurgitated talking points, and uncertain command of facts. it has been my experience that these factchallenged warriors of the right shrink when called on their unsupported by facts misinterpretations.those on the left are more likely than not moderates while the right are rabid reactionaries. but if you don't care for sparring, no one is holding a gun to your head, you may do your reading and posting elsewhere
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 08:07am
JOHANNE.
"I'm still amazed at lower class, economically, rich wannabees are defending the privileges of the privileged"
That should be more telling, the fact that you do not understand this, to summarize your statement, seemingly amazing paradox. It is the FACT that for many conservatives, who especially are not financial as well off as others, that there are issues that ACTUALLY supercede economic ones. That statment you made which I heard Jesse Jackson make a similiar one, confirms this belief is widely held to some extent.
It should be comforting to you that there are issues that people vote for that transcend personal wealth. Reps have recently discovered that, DEMS still have not grasped that concept. Bottomline is, most people are able to enjoy a modestly comfortable lifstyle, for many their vote is not fixed on a single issue. DEMS try to divide with class, for most people, its not about that, as evidence by recent national elections.
So when I see DEMS/Liberal pundits belittling people of faith, characterize people as homophobes because they are against gay marriage, demonizing people as racists who are against affrimative action, or classifying as jingoists those who very proud of America; It proves that they still dont get it. When DEMS finally learn that point, maybe they will win some national elections again.
Posted by CPT at 09/21/2005 @ 08:22am
My view is that the right is "capital centred", and the left is "people centred", a more efficient approach would be, to my view "capital centred on people", because, only an efficient and strong economy is capable of creating the wealth needed to ensure solidarity, and increase the life and working conditions of people, dont forget that human potential is the essential element of a strong economy. and now place to the paid bloggers
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 08:23am
BOOKMANJ
Thanks for reaffirming my point. Just as I was writing it. Damn I get tired of being right. lol Relax, not coming down on anyone.
Posted by CPT at 09/21/2005 @ 08:27am
SJCHERMAK:
Alas, you are STILL wrong... The IRS website only deals with INCOME tax. It does not deal with all the other various and sundry state and local taxes. When you fail to take it all into consideration, you make asinine comments... hence your post.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 09:23am
cpt, that is so unbelievalbly naive.
the fact is that the rich are trading in on the economic ignorance of the exploited ones. and don't come to me that they are not exploited, voluntarily or otherwise.
when wages are stagnant for five years that means that the boss is stealing from you, paying you in money worth less. when the minimum wage does not keep up with inflation, that is also stealing from those less fortunate.
when government servicces are curtailed in order to give tax cuts to the rich and super rich, that is also stealing. and I have yet to see your myopic views be "right" on anything
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 09:24am
Is Barack Obama the Paul Wellstone for today?
Posted by nathanhale at 09/21/2005 @ 09:31am
frankgrits, you are correct, the war is the underlying issue of nearly everything. perhaps we should have a continuing war blog here, on ethat is week by week so as not to get too long.
have you yet seen an instance where the right wing on these threads have EVER admitted having their facts wrong? don't hold your breath
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 09:42am
FRANKGRITS
You have highlighted an important issue, look at what happened with the British troops yesterday, but I feel the word "infiltration" is not correct, the whole Iraki people are against the allied occupation, and they will add their sand grain as soon as they can do it to get the US/UK out of their country. Will only cost the lives of some troops, but that is already approved by congress and white house.
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 09:45am
that's the trouble with fighting them over there, we can't tell the enemy from the friend, that's assuming we have any friends in Iraq. It's called a civil war. It's been a civil war from the start, and the US' inept meddling has exposed us from fire from all sides.
how is it leadership when many of the Bush administration's initiatives are opposed by 70% of the people? shove your plans down the people's throats at your ballotbox peril. at least Clinton had the recipient's consent when he was shoving something down her throat. sorry I couldn't resist, what with the new anti porn initiative by the FBI
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 09:52am
LL, by quoting the text from Mark (or John), you very much intended it to go hand in hand with your sin comment. I believe your first post was, "How do you really eliminate poverty? It cannot be done according to Jesus who said "the poor you have with you always". Why, because of sin."
So if you want to back away from that statement, feel free. But don't pretend for second that you didn't intend to lump sin and poverty together (WAY out of context of the Bible). You said, "Secondly, I did not say the text had anything to do with sin. I pointed out that Jesus Himself said there will always be those who are poor."
Look at those two quotes. What do I see? A FLIP FLOPPER!
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 09:53am
NATHANHALE, Obama was the first guy I thought of too, but boy does he need experience. If he's still got that gleam in his eye in a few years, he's a keeper.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 09:54am
NATHANHALE, Obama was the first guy I thought of too, but boy does he need experience. If he's still got that gleam in his eye in a few years, he's a keeper.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 09:55am
LL, no doubt, your kids are probably smart. As are a lot of homeschooled kids, but they cannot fully integrate with society because they completely missed out on how to function with other humans. I can only imagine how much more disfunctional America would be if kids were all locked away in their houses, earning college degrees by the time they are 15.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 10:01am
BLUETEXAN, that was mean. If there's a good conservative LL is the man. Don't dis his family with a generalization!
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 10:04am
CPT:
Sorry, but I think it is conservatives like you who have been duped. GOP politicians talk a big game come election time on wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, and then ignore them in office to continue making things better for the well-off through trickle-down economic policies, corporate welfare, while ignoring the plight of working Americans and poor people. The GOP is the party of divide-and-conquer and the sooner you realize that, the better off our country will be.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/21/2005 @ 10:07am
MYPARADIGM, I wasn't being mean. I was only making the point that homeschool children don't receive enough interaction with other children in order to know how to properly socialize. Perhaps LL kids turned out differently.
LL is a grown man, he dishes it out so I think he can take it too.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 10:10am
what's with this jesus jive again?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:11am
JOHANNESROLF, when LL enters a blog, he brings his Jesus talk. So we have to respond with Jesus talk, that's all he knows (or thinks he knows). That and the federal government is satan.
Posted by BlueTexan at 09/21/2005 @ 10:13am
home schooling is fine, for those whose parents are highly educated, and those that can afford the time. that leaves out a great majority of american households. also if the polls are correct and a majority believes in creationism, god help us, irony, and protect us from hordes of miseducated children. that home school kids are socially disadvantaged is a myth.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:14am
Jesus and religion in general has been so abused by the right, who cynically twists the entire judeo-christian ethical structure to their nefarious ends. the guy was known as the prince of peace, for heaven's sake
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:17am
Jesus and religion in general has been so abused by the right, who cynically twists the entire judeo-christian ethical structure to their nefarious ends. the guy was known as the prince of peace, for heaven's sake
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:17am
Religion from a teology point of view is politics, catholics and many others believe in the "absent God" that needs all sort of representatives to "represent him", protestants and other many others believe in the "present God" that do not need any representative to represent him, God is there and you go and get in touch with him (if you want) - but only if you keep the established moral rules of the community where you live. So religion is politics, any thing else.....?
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 10:27am
you're advocating religion is politics? you're advocating the cooption of catholic bishops enlisted in the Bush presidential campaign, vilifying Kerry from their pulpits? if you are, you have a lot in common with the taleban and the jihadists
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:36am
you're advocating religion is politics? you're advocating the cooption of catholic bishops enlisted in the Bush presidential campaign, vilifying Kerry from their pulpits? if you are, you have a lot in common with the taleban and the jihadists
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:36am
sorry for duplicate posts, I'm having some computer issues
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:37am
JOHANNESROLF
Talibans, Jihadists, Iran and so forth, are being defined by the White House as "Theocracies", strange, but seems to me that this administration also is a theocracy, because of obvious reasons.
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 10:43am
HMAN23.. GOP politicians talk a big game come election time on wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, and then ignore them in office.
Very well said.
Posted by 9patch at 09/21/2005 @ 10:46am
HMAN23/9PATCH: I wouldn't call outlawing gay marriage in many states and packing SCOTUS with anti-choice ideologues ignoring issues. Looks like they mean to walk their talk.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 10:56am
Did I hear Liberty call himself a profit? Oh man, this guy is wacky to the 10th!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/21/2005 @ 11:08am
Myparadigm..
You're right about state laws and SCOTUS. I was thinking about the last presidential election. In my state, the Republican pledge for an amendment to the US constitution banning gay marriage had enormous influence. I know swing voters who voted for Bush because 'he was against gay marriage and Kerry is not.' Now that the Reps are in office and the wedge issue did it's job, they've dropped the amendment issue completely.
Posted by 9patch at 09/21/2005 @ 11:08am
BLUETEXAN: I am not an advocate for Homeschooling but I investigated it for my own kid. There is no evidence to suggest that homeschooled kids get any less social interaction than regular school children. In fact, according to nearly every study I could get my hands on, homeschooled kids seem to adjust better to college life than kids from comparable family backgrounds and economic classes. Homeschooled kids have as many friends and attend as many or more extra curricular activities as other kids. Other than the fact that the standardized test scores for homeschooled kids are WAY higher than for kids of similar background and class, the big difference is that they do not become programmed to jump up and change desks at the sound of bells.
Posted by bookmanjb at 09/21/2005 @ 11:11am
Also .. I also agree with HMAN23 that these wedge issues are being cynically used to manipulate voters. One way to keep people listening to you is to get them outraged and angry. It works for politicians, it works for talk radio hosts, and it works for trolls on the internet.
Posted by 9patch at 09/21/2005 @ 11:17am
Home shooling is for people who are control freaks! They don't want their kids exposed to the evils of our society so they try to crank out little Christian robots. I've seen it plenty of times. There are benifits to it but but eventually the kids have to face the real world. The problem is they never learn coping skills and may become socially awkward.....
You can bet they'll never hear about Darwin!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/21/2005 @ 11:20am
No disagreement there, but I must point out that the left does it just as much, though not as well, as the right.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/21/2005 @ 11:24am
NO-NONSENSE You can bet they'll never hear about Darwin!
Creationism = Theocracy
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 11:30am
JOHANNE
You have yet to see my myopic views be right on anything? Well, how do you explain since 1994 REP, being elected to national offices more and more? I suppose, as my post states you will be dismissive of this FACT, and wallow in the equally naive views of the LEFT as an explanation. Dismiss if you will, that is the reason DEMS will fail in national elections.
THERE ARE ISSUES THAT TRANSCEND ECONOMIC FACTORS FOR MANY AMERICANS, WHY? BECAUSE AS LONG AS THEY CAN LIVE COMFORTABLEY, ECONOMY IS NOT GOING TO BE PARAMOUNT WITH THEM.
HMAN23
REPs actually have addressed those issues, most of those issues you cite are determined in courts, where liberals have a stronghold, although it is weakening, Americans will vote in line with THEIR values. As to you other point, how are you going to articulate that message that REP=bad DEMS=Good, who cares IF you are right, if you cannot convince others?
In that case you should re-look your message, honestly and see where the disconnect is, maybe you are not as smart as you think you are. Then you must deal with the rest of America is not as "enlightened" because it is those others who will put you back in charge.
Posted by CPT at 09/21/2005 @ 11:44am
FRANKGRITS
Again agree with you, did you realise that each time we get to facts that show and prove the mistakes of this administration policies, the paid bloggers, dilute
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 11:52am
FRANKGRITS, that's a clear assertion: black hole for a soul. seems that their religion ideals are closer to talibanism, the adminirtation is a War and terror monger say, THEOCRACY
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 12:09pm
cpt, at least on this blog your "ideas" and "facts" are in the minority, the rest of the country too, as the polls demonstrate. and the won elections, by a thin margin to be sure, does not demonstrate the soundness of your ideas. Hitler got a lot of votes too. You have never addressed points made against your warmongering ass, and while I may not be as smart as I think I am , I have not seen any demonstration that I am not smarter than you. but then the military isn't known for their smarts is it?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:18pm
JOHANNESROLF,
You also have to factor in Congressional redistricting. In the last election, Republicans used redistricting in Texas and Pennsylvania to gain several seats in the House of Representatives. Computers have made it possible for the party controlling state governments to do some very clever redistricting to extend their dominance, without significant change in the voting patterns of their citizens.
Posted by 9patch at 09/21/2005 @ 12:25pm
Frankg,
You are right about keeping a focus on Iraq!
Here follows some key news flashes:
September 17, 2005 Release Number: 05-09-40
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MULTI-NATIONAL FORCES CAPTURE KEY TERROR LEADERS IN MOSUL
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Multi-National forces, acting on multiple intelligence sources and tips from local citizens, raided a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq terrorist location in southwest Mosul, Sept. 5, capturing the top al-Qaida leaders in the city.
Captured during the raid was Taha Ibrahim Yasin Becher, (aka Abu Fatima), the al-Qaida in Iraq's Emir of Mosul, and Hamed Sa'eed Ismael Mustafa, (aka Abu Shahed), the organization's West Mosul Emir.
Abu Fatima and Abu Shahed were in a meeting at the time of their capture.
Abu Fatima had recently taken over the role of Emir after Abu Talha was captured in June and Abu Zubayr, who replaced Talha, was killed in mid-August. Abu Fatima had only held the position for 12 days when he was captured.
Abu Fatima supervised and directed the day-to-day operations of the organization and was responsible for numerous attacks against Iraqi security and Coalition forces.
Abu Shahed was responsible for organizing al-Qaeda activities in western Mosul. He was responsible for attacks conducted in the area and also participated in attacks involving small arms and other weapons directed against Iraqi security and Coalition forces. As the leader of one of Mosul's territories he was in line to succeed Abu Fatima in the event of his death or capture.
http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/News_Release.asp?NewsRelease=20050940 .txt
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 12:30pm
you also have to factor in stolen elections, voter suppression, politicised supreme court decisions, etc
this guy, Bush is a disaster and the american people seem to agree with me, as the polls demonstrate
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:31pm
love liberty, another intellectual light who has figured out cut and paste, write your own damn post!
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:32pm
September 21, 2005 Release Number: 05-09-52
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AL QAIDA IN IRAQ EMIR KILLED IN HADITHA
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition forces raided a terrorist safe house in the city of Haditha Sept. 18, resulting in the death of Shehab Hamed (aka Abu Ali), a known al Qaida in Iraq senior military Emir, and the capture of another terrorist.
Abu Ali has been identified as the senior al Qaida in Iraq military Emir of al Qaim and was responsible for all terrorist operations in the al Qaim area, to include directing, planning and executing VBIED, IED and mortar attacks against Iraqi security and Coalition forces.
Coalition forces believe that Abu Ali recently assumed the role of regional al Qaida in Iraq military Emir responsible for all regional terrorist operations for the group in the al Qaim and Haditha areas along the Euphrates River Valley. Abu Ali recently moved from al Qaim to Haditha where he was killed.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 12:32pm
Yo FRANKGRITS,
I posted this in another Nation blog but it's completely germane to your post:
A few months before the invasion of Iraq, my brother-in-law and two others poured their own blood on the Pentagon. They did it away from all entrances and walkways; the idea was not to disrupt but to draw attention. Dedicated to non-violence, they stood still and waited. Guards tackled them and threw them to the ground even though the three were not moving or attempting to resist. They were brought up on charges of resisting arrest, fleeing from the scene, defacing federal property, etc. The judge was Pat Buchanan's sister-in-law. The guards testified that the three had violently resisted arrest and attempted to flee. The three were not allowed to say why they had done the action; the judge said it was irrelevant (!!!!!!!!!!!!) They each got six months in fed. prison with no time off allowed for good behaviour. (contrast that with Martha Stewart's 5 months for perjury and obstructing justice). SIX MONTHS!!! They served their time with dignity. They were fully prepared to accept the (utterly unfair) consequences of their actions, as do nearly all non-violent peace advocates. I am enraged when idiots like CPT spout their self-righteous ignorance. People who protest the Iraq war are heros; scum like CPT need to understand that none of the protesters are trying to avoid prosecution. They simply want to be tried for the crimes they committed, not for trumped up charges designed to intimidate and persecute. Every Red State reactionary who voted for the chumps in charge should be ashamed of themselves and for what America has done in our names.
Posted by BOOKMANJB 09/18/2005 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person
Posted by bookmanjb at 09/21/2005 @ 12:35pm
you know they've captured the number two man, dozens of times. you just don't get it, insurgencies do not depend on a command hierarchy, just as you cannot fight set battles with them. Tal afar, for instance. one headline read: coalition forces chased insurgents from the city. a more sober headline put it another way: opponents melted away in the face of the onslaught, to fight another day
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:36pm
bookmanjb, come to washington on saturday to protest this semi fascist regime, maybe not so semi, or go to your local library, support progressive candidates, and don't let the bastards get away with their lies on this and other blogs
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:40pm
lovelibertypreachmilitarism, ten americans killed yesterday, this is good? ten americans for one emir?
one more cut and paste job and your history
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:43pm
In a statement released two days after US President George W. Bush publicly warned Damascus to stop foreign fighters entering Iraq, the Syrian embassy here said the country was making "great efforts" to seal the border between Syria and Iraq.
"Syria strongly and categorically denounces the terrorist explosions, which have killed and injured many innocent civilians in Iraq during the past couple of days," the statement said. "In this hard time, Syria would like to reiterate its position calling for the unity of the Iraqi people as a path to insure stability and security in Iraq.
"To help the Iraqi people in achieving security and prosperity and because the Iraqi quagmire has dangerous implications on the entire Middle East, Syria has exerted and continues to exert great efforts to seal the Syrian-Iraqi border," the statement said. "Moreover, Syria reiterates our willingness to do whatever it takes to cooperate with the US and Iraqi authorities for the sake of achieving these objectives," it added.
Bush warned Syria on Tuesday that it faces growing isolation because of its failure to stop foreign fighters from entering Iraq and because of its actions in Lebanon. "These people are coming from Syria into Iraq and killing a lot of innocent people," Bush told reporters following a meeting at the White House with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. "They're trying to kill our folks as well.
"And the Syrian leader (President Bashar al-Assad) must understand, we take his lack of action seriously," Bush said.
http://www.almendhar.com/english_6308/news.aspx [url]
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 12:48pm
aah, no more cut and paste jobs for me from lovelibertytoostupid to write his own posts
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 12:59pm
LoveLib- I agree with J-Rolf, please stop with the cut/paste. If we want a neo-con clipping service we'll ask for it. However, we do anxiously await more revelations from the self-avowed prophet.
Posted by Fishbite at 09/21/2005 @ 1:05pm
lovelibertypreachmilitarism, ten americans killed yesterday, this is good? ten americans for one emir?
one more cut and paste job and your history
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/21/2005 @ 12:43am
All the deaths are too many and to be mourned. However we are at war and good men and women die during the conduct of war. I still miss the friends I lost, but I honor their names and their memories as I do those lost in this current conflict. If you ask the men and women over in Iraq, the great majority believe in what they are doing with many asking to return.
I prefer though to let them speak for themselves:
http://www.defendamerica.mil/WhyIServe.html [url]
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 1:10pm
No harm no foul; I was simply responding to Frankg's request that we focus more on the events in Iraq. Just providing a sampler.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 1:11pm
LOVE LIBERTY You are a paid blogger, but be aware, your employer is already setting up a blog-response center in Louisiana, employing refugees under the minimum wage to do your same job, so you will soon be fired, or requested to relocate for a lesser pay, have a nice neo-con day
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 1:23pm
LOVE LIBERTY You are a paid blogger, but be aware, your employer is already setting up a blog-response center in Louisiana, employing refugees under the minimum wage to do your same job, so you will soon be fired, or requested to relocate for a lesser pay, have a nice neo-con day
Posted by AREYOUOK 09/21/2005 @ 1:23pm
If I'm a paid blogger, I wish someone would start making deposits to my checking account. My wife would dearly appreciate it.
I can't be easily fired as I work for myself and I am loathe to fire someone so dedicated.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 1:31pm
LOVE LIBERTY If you are not paid for what you write, you are simply brainwashed, which is worse, greetings to your wife and my best wishes for you all
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 1:37pm
LOVE LIBERTY If you are not paid for what you write, you are simply brainwashed, which is worse, greetings to your wife and my best wishes for you all
Posted by AREYOUOK 09/21/2005 @ 1:37pm
Areyouok,
What is with this constant repetition by many liberals that a conservative is someone who is either paid to think in a certain manner or is brainwashed? Is it really beyond your comprehension to understand that there is a genuine political philosophy that is studied and promoted by other than the left?
We engage in debate here and in our homes and workplaces because both sides are passionate about their beliefs. To demean and belittle someone as lacking even a basic reason for a belief is to lack understanding about mankind in general and politics in particular.
And thanks for the greeting to my wife and best wishes! Ditto
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 1:47pm
LOVE LIBERTY I am so happy to hear you have a clear and argumented position, I respect this alot, and my apologies if my words hurted, but your copy paste exercise was a waste of time
Posted by areyouok at 09/21/2005 @ 1:51pm
LL:
How many dual-earner families do you believe certainly could become single-earner families? How many dual-earner families do you believe want to become single-earner families in order to home school their children?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 2:32pm
Frankg,
Wanted to take time to read the entire article (even though I knew what it would look like given Klein's liberal bent). Just a few comments.
1. If Bush had not devoted time and manpower to the WMD question, he would have been severely criticised by you and other liberals.
2. Likewise with the second point about contacting insurgents.
3. The replacement of key personnel issue is unavoidable in politics and ignores the wisdom of also replacing people who may not be getting the job done.
4. The whole issue of disbanding the army is a mixed bag of uncertainty. We can never know if it would have worked or not. I would have been willing to support the decision either way.
I want to address the whole issue of Klein's use of unsubstantiated current and former intelligence people. First of all, not citing even one name of a former intel person who contributed is suspicious at best. Secondly, and this may be news to many liberals; our intel community is fairly divided between liberals and conservatives. That does extend somewhat to civilians in the Pentagon, though not to the same degree. That was undoubtedly utilized by Klein in using sources that were sympathetic to the direction he was taking the article.
Some issues like the source of finances was a compilation of existing information. However, I found it noteworthy that Klein did not bother to inform his readers that the US has established that Saddam's wife is the primary source in Damascus for funneling funds to the Baathist insurgents in Iraq.
The decades of terrorism in Israel has shown us that it is virtually impossible to eliminate or prevent all terrorism in a nation. That however, is not really our task at hand. Our current stage of strategy is to:
1. Continue to the training of Iraq's military and police personnel.
2. Work in conjunction with Iraqi forces to root out the insurgents wherever intel reveals them.
3. Continue to transfer the responsibility for intel to the Iraqi's themselves. They are now the primary source for intel. A fact that Klein also failed to discuss or take into consideration.
4. Continue infrastructure rebuilding
5. Develop plans for withdrawal in the event of a successful referendum in October, or a contigency plan in the event that new elections for a temporary government are required.
6. Build on the offer this week by Syria to get serious in cutting off the pipeline of money, personnel, and weapons that are coming out of Syria.
Could add more, but that is plenty for digestion. Thanks again Frank for the focus. I know it weighs heavily given your son's recent deployment.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 2:43pm
How many dual-earner families do you believe certainly could become single-earner families? How many dual-earner families do you believe want to become single-earner families in order to home school their children?
Posted by URMYGYRO 09/21/2005 @ 2:32pm
As many as want it bad enough. Just like we did. Being a parent means sometimes sacrificing personal dreams and desires. Also, it has been proven that in many instances, it is almost cheaper for one parent to stay home than work when you add up the extra taxes, transportation and meal expenses, work clothing, and fatigue (things still need to be taken care of at home and many mothers especially end of working full time a work and full time at home).
It has been my experience that the majority of Christian families would prefer the single earner, home school route. I especially find that Christian mothers who cannot stay home, are conflicted, and voice regret that they are not home with their children.
I'm not sure what is so perplexing about the natural desire of mothers to be with their children. I know feminism tells women that their personal desires and dreams come first, but that is not consistent with the emotional makeup of most women.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 2:50pm
Just out of curiousity, do any liberals infiltrate and harrass people on any of the conservative blogs? I don't understand why anyone even dignifies these clowns with a moment of your time. These people aren't interested in dialogue, or conversation, or anything remotely resembling a civilized discourse. If these people aren't being paid to annoy us in this fashion, then they're just here to rattle our chains and constantly shift the subject of conversation to one of their inane Republican talking-points. Either ignore them (I assure you, they certainly ignore any and all liberal ideas) or harass them until they go away. These people are the bits of trash stuck to the floor of a public restroom, and should be treated accordingly. There are people who do this all over the cybersphere, in very unlikely places. Treat them with the same dignity that they display to you and ignore them.
Posted by Robespierre at 09/21/2005 @ 2:53pm
Love Liberty, what the heck are you talking about? Feminism does tell women "that their personal desires and dreams come first" but what is the "emotional makeup" of most women and how is it conflicted with the personal dreams you speak of? Feminism is all about choice...if women want to stay home with their kids, that's their choice. Nothing wrong with that. Why do you think we've have lobbied all these years for more time off to spend with the kids? Maternity leave and flex time would not have been possible without feminists, they've always supported a woman's desire to stay home and raise their children, or at least be able to juggle career and family without having a nervous breakdown. Feminism and stay-at-home motherhood are very compatible.
Posted by RG at 09/21/2005 @ 3:02pm
LoveLib - Golly gee, but ain't it heartwarming how those Christian moms really love their kids and are conflicted about going to work. Too bad that Jewish moms and Muslim moms and atheist moms aren't conflicted, thus indicating that they actually hate their kids and are just into self-actualization. Why, oh why, won't they come to their senses and welcome Jesus into their lives? For the sake of the children!
Posted by Fishbite at 09/21/2005 @ 3:10pm
LL & others re: 2 to 1-earner
Dunno what income scale you folks exist on that are able to have 1 income, but between one FT job (spouse), 2 PT jobs (me), and some free-lance writing and editing (me too!) we still exist paycheck to paycheck. I suppose we could go to 1 paycheck, but we would also be living in a box under a bridge! I further do not personally know anyone who *could* drop 40-50% of their household income. Not in this America!
[For the record...we do not have an extravagant entertainment expense. I'd bet we go out to eat as a family once every 4-6 weeks, and go to the movies even less. I don't smoke and rarely drink - aside from an occasional glass of wine. We have no live entertainment to speak of hereabouts....so my expenses are just bills to exist by and large. OK, I *do* have cable internet, but only basic cable and VOIP phone service for my communication needs...thus our budget is economized as much as practicable.]
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/21/2005 @ 3:11pm
Robespierre
I went to Redstate.org and thought about "sapping", but their regs are pretty clear that they throw libs out when caught. Wouldn't want any conflicting viewpoints now! ["Yes sir, yes sir, very good sir...of course we agree"] Must be easy to be "right" when you only listen to those who agree with you!
Besides, the more I read, the more I felt the urge to bathe....
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/21/2005 @ 3:15pm
CPT:
I am not a political strategist, but the message seems pretty simple. For the last generation, Republicans have deceived working Americans into believing that their policies will better their lives and make them safer. This is patently untrue. Unless you are a CEO or multi-millionaire, please name me one aspect of Bush's America that has enhanced your life.
Bush sold America on a huge tax cut because he claimed it would benefit the "economy." Well, whose economy? Did working-class Republicans benefit? No. The cuts greatly favored the very wealthy, and his corporate economic policies no doubt enhanced corporate profits, but has this translated into more jobs or higher wages for working-class Republicans? No. It HAS resulted in a burgeoning debt that requires cuts in social programs that can be shown to benefit Republicans as well as Democrats. As long as we are talking about draining the Treasury, unless you qualify, tell me how eliminating the Estate Tax helps the average Republican? Has Bush's environmental policies bettered the lives of the Republican citizen? Not one bit. Has health care for the working-class Republican improved? Nope. If you can even afford health insurance, how much have Republicans' premiums shot up since 2000? As for the bankruptcy bill that was a boon to banks, how does that help a working-class Republican that is faced with choosing between his bills and a necessary, yet expensive, health-care crisis (statistically, the primary reason people fall into bankruptcy)? Please explain to me how Republicans benefit from the Energy Bill (i.e. corporate welfare) and Transportation Bill (i.e. massive pork projects) that were signed by Bush. What about the illusion that Republicans should be more trusted than Democrats to keep us safer at home? The debacle after Hurricane Katrina shatters that myth. Finally, in 2000, Bush promised to bring respectability and honesty back to the White House. Then he led us into a multi-billion dollar, 2000 fatality war with Iraq based on knowingly false pretenses of WMD and an Iraq-Al Queda (or 9/11) link, and we are now mired in a campaign that could stretch on for a decade, resulting in an Islamic theocracy and terrorist training ground.
Republicans will use wedge issues like pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and catchy phrases like "keeping government off your back," and "tax cuts," and "keeping us safe." However, their overall strategy has always been simply to demonize the Left, Independents and moderate Republicans should ask themselves whether or not their lives are better since 2000 or not. If voters cannot honestly answer this using the last 5 years as evidence, and want to vote for a candidate simply because they call themselves a "compassionate conservative," then so be it. The Left can convince some to switch, by making it clear that their vision of America INCLUDES most Americans, while conservatives' vision EXCLUDES them. Some will never switch and that's okay. The Left can also benefit from attracting voters who previously were not registered. It is not like we are talking about even a 60/40 split favoring conservatives here. It will not take much to tip the scales.
How am I doing so far, CPT? For a much better analysis of the message and image game, I suggest reading James Kroeger's piece The Republican Nemesis [taxwisdom.org]. It is good reading for everyone.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/21/2005 @ 3:19pm
LL:
#1: you didn't answer either of my questions. Provide some numbers. Provide some percentages. Provide something other than your intuition.
#2: the women you know probably don't have the skills to thrive, or even survive, in the workplace. Women like that attach themselves to men who are capable of making a living in the workplace.
Then again, there are women like John Roberts' wife who is a successful lawyer in her own right. Two rich lawyers don't have to worry about the quality of their children's education. Even if the children went to public school (oh, the horrors!), the Roberts' business contacts will most certainly be used to provide these children with top-notch opportunities to make money.
The point is: you avoid the discussion that most people cannot afford to have one earner in their family. And even if they can technically "afford" it (you'd have to give me an objective threshold of the minimum amount one earner should make for your concept to work) why should the main goal of most women be to stay home and raise children, while the father gets to leave home every day and pursue a career? That's a regressive view. That's your real goal, and that's why you want home schooling to become prevalent, so women have to stay home.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 3:27pm
LL:
"I know feminism tells women that their personal desires and dreams come first, but that is not consistent with the emotional makeup of most women."
LOL! I know you profess to be an expert on just about every topic on this board, and now I guess we should add your keen insight into the "emotional makeup of most women." Please tell, how does a man come to learn this?
Posted by Hman23 at 09/21/2005 @ 3:36pm
Leftofcenter: See, the Republican hate machine has one thing that most liberals don't: discipline. Like Kevin Spacey's character in The Usual Suspects said: "... you just needed the will to do what the other guy wouldn't." By our very nature, liberals are inclined to allow for competing viewpoints. Not so the conservatives. They aren't interested in simply defeating the Left, they want to eliminate it altogether. First they will silence us, then marginalize us, and finally eradicate us in whatever manner they see fit. The Nazi's used gas chambers, the Republicans will use their manipulation of voting machines, "reformation" of voter registration rolls, and voter I.D. cards to simply remove liberals from the equation of American politics. You can say "that can't happen here", but I'm sure plenty of people in Germany around 1928 said the same thing. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and you can't get much more powerful or corrupt than the G.O.P. these days.
Posted by Robespierre at 09/21/2005 @ 3:44pm
Republicans seem to think it's perfectly alright to politicize something like Rehnquist's death (just wait til Greenspan kicks it... the supply-siders might hold a Roman triumph to celebrate his memory.) But they get their panties in a bunch when liberals comemorate one of their own. The Right can sing hosannahs to the heavens over the powdered ashes of the dead at the World Trade Center, but chastise anyone who dares suggest that we show the coffins of dead soldiers from Iraq or question why so many poor New Orleanais drowned in their ghettos while the ruling junta took vacations or shopping jaunts. The GOP didn't invent the double standard, but they have perfected it, putting even the pigs from "Animal Farm" to shame with their shamelessness.
Posted by Robespierre at 09/21/2005 @ 4:09pm
LOL! I know you profess to be an expert on just about every topic on this board, and now I guess we should add your keen insight into the "emotional makeup of most women." Please tell, how does a man come to learn this?
Posted by HMAN23 09/21/2005 @ 3:36pm
time spent over decades counseling and praying with men, women, and couples. It is part of my job. Also, most conservative women I know (including my wife), are not shy about expressing their feelings. I'm sure this applies equally to liberal women.
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 4:11pm
ROBESPIERRE: I condiser myself very conservative and I don't feel the way you do. But, you have to consider that as much as you might think something is one way, I would probably disagree, and with a passion. It's wrong to discount someone as not worth the time of day just because you disagree with them.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/21/2005 @ 4:13pm
Ok, someone correct me if I am totally misunderstanding this. Someone with a handle of "Robespierre" comes on the Nation website accusing conservatives of all manner of evil intent.
Just what revised Terror constitutes your new vision for America?
Do any of the liberals/progressives here find it something of an oxymoron for someone who's apparent hero was a renowned author of terror and extremism to be criticizing their perceived tryanny and extremism of conservatives?
Posted by love liberty at 09/21/2005 @ 4:19pm
I stayed home with my kids until the youngest began school. This is not about 'emotional makeup' (I don't use the other kind of makeup either...) I don't know any one who will interact with my children the way I do. In other words, it was an intellectual, not an emotional decision. Now I am having a blast working part time, seasonally. Technically, our family is below the poverty level, but since I don't buy into what most Americans consider a normal way of life, we're doing just fine, thank you. We're lucky to own our home, however, and without that, it would be impossible. It's true that welfare is not the answer to poverty. Duh. Liveable wages are the answer. Along with Real education, instead of the pap they serve up in the public schools. But growing a truly educated citizenry would lead to another revolution. So don't look to government to provide it.
Posted by tmag at 09/21/2005 @ 4:31pm
As oxymoronic as someone named "Love Liberty" who supports the Patriot Act? Robespierre sent a king to the guillotine, then was executed by the more "moderate" Revolutionairies, setting the stage for Napoleon and his dictatorship. Right wingers might want to put down their latest copy of "Left Behind" and read a history book once in a while. Oh, wait, I forgot that all history books not approved by the Texas Board of Education are simply lies written by atheists and communists, right?
And I'm supposed to listen to conservatives politely while they say things that I reject with every fiber of my soul? Please. Go have one of your phony town-hall meetings with your vetted audiences and preach it to the choir. Sen. Wellstone wouldn't listen to the GOP's drivel and neither will I.
Posted by Robespierre at 09/21/2005 @ 4:37pm
LL:
Way to continue avoiding the two questions I asked that are absolutely important for us to know if we're going to believe your arguments about home schooling. I'll repost them here:
"How many dual-earner families do you believe certainly could become single-earner families? How many dual-earner families do you believe want to become single-earner families in order to home school their children?"
So far you haven't anted up. Care to actually put your chips on the table? Or do you fear looking like someone who pretends to be an expert when he's not?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 4:39pm
I'm done. I'm off to my second job so I can continue to live this American Dream that the Republicans keep promising us...
Posted by Robespierre at 09/21/2005 @ 4:49pm
robespierre:
one income is enough. Haven't you been listening to LL. Work one job and then hope your creditors and bill collectors understand. Or, move into a shack.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/21/2005 @ 4:51pm
Robespierre:
Nicely done. If I could stand without the use of my crutches (due to an ill-advised basketball game gone horribly wrong) I would do so and scream, "Author, author!" at the top of my lungs.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 5:01pm
URMYGYRO:
You should read the book my esteemed Senator Santorum wrote recently about that very issue. Never mind the fact that he is independently wealthy, and refuses to send his kids to public schools. No wonder he is so out of touch with real Americans.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 5:07pm
Jor, Robespierre, etc
I wonder if folks like Santorum, Dubya and LL have any real feeling just how poor the "average" American is? I severly doubt it. Maybe they should take a look-see at something like: HERE [workplacefairness.org]
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/21/2005 @ 6:00pm
LEFTOFCENTER:
Seeing as Bush likes to isolate himself on his thousand+ acre "ranch" near where my parents live, and chooses to fly over the realm of the poor and downtrodden, instead of actually being there with them, I believe the answer to that question is a resounding NO.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 6:29pm
Oh CPT . . . where did you go?
Posted by Hman23 at 09/21/2005 @ 6:48pm
I'm truly sad that I did not get to hear Wellstone speak. I was not really involved in civic matters until too late. But from what I read and hear he was one of a kind. Oh, and I must commend The Nation. for allowing the trolls to post on the blog. Now that's really promoting an open dialouge there.
Jason Gooljar The Working Families Man [workingfamiliesman.blogspot.com]
Posted by jasongooljar at 09/21/2005 @ 7:12pm
Great piece. Just one thing, though (and perhaps someone has addressed this already- I haven't read every post); were Paul Wellstone alive today, I doubt that he would have to have witnessed nearly the destruction that Katrina has wreaked under the Bushco "rule". Had he lived, I believe that he could have provided the sort of catalyst needed to pull the gutless Dems (and yes, I suppose even some Republikkaners) together against the war in Iraq. There would be no war in Iraq, and our tax dollars would have stayed at home, tending to things such as crumbling levees. He was that kind of senator. That's why he was assassinated.
Posted by drewblue at 09/21/2005 @ 8:17pm
If I could stand without the use of my crutches (due to an ill-advised basketball game gone horribly wrong) ...
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/21/2005 @ 5:01pm
See, this is what happens when you unamerican progressive types play basketball instead of buying a ticket to a basketball game, like a good consumer/American would!
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/21/2005 @ 8:34pm
ILOVEPHYSICS:
The relly funny thing is, I am a full-contact fighter, a la UFC/PRIDE, and the worst injury I ever had so far doing that was a broken nose. Go figure. I guess it really is true what they say. Short white men shouldn't play basketball... :D
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 9:48pm
ILP:
Do you think LIBSARENUTS and LIBSARENUTTY are the same person? I sure do... they spout the same worthless bile, and have very similar, offensive names. I wonder...
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 9:49pm
It's sad what has happened to the thread "We can do better".
The fist step towards making progress here will be moderation of these forums.
What say, 'The Nation' - how about clearing out some of this stuff?
Posted by shpilk at 09/21/2005 @ 10:16pm
these threads come and go, and sometimes the topic is best covered not head on but by a circuitous route. we don't need no stinkin' badges, I mean moderators. if this bugs you there a 8 million blogs in the naked city, I mean on the web
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:23pm
jorcheim, duh, of course they're the same person, the person who thinks it's discussion when he clips articles which are supposed to support his half baked view of the world. Iam ignoring both of them and it feels great, try it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:33pm
Santorum is a kook, I mean have you read some of the tripe this guys spouts? he's not doing so well in his home state and may wind up on the scrapheap of history next election
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:36pm
pridebaby, some ideas are better than others and we are not giving equal time to errors in fact, kneejerk "conservative" thoughts etc
ya posts yer posts a' yer takes yer chances
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:37pm
robespierre, I think it's a great idea to "infiltrate" right wing blogs to stir things up a little, you should try it. you'll find they turn into invective spewing grand inquisitors. and they don't have better command of the facts there either
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/21/2005 @ 10:42pm
JOHANNESROLF:
I was being facetious regarding LIBSARENUTS/NUTTY... granted sarcasm doesn't translate well throught the written word... :D
And yes, being that I am in Santorum's home state, he may not be doing well, but honestly, I don't see who could beat him. He outspends everyone he runs against 2 to 1. Look at Jesse Helms throughout the 80's in NC (I lived there from 1976 to 1998). No one thought Helms would last as long as he did (5 terms, if I remember correctly...), but he also was able to raise more money than any of his competitors. I hope you are right... but I fear you are wrong.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/21/2005 @ 10:50pm
LL and/or others "home schooling"
Would be very curious to know what these children are taught about 1) development of the universe (if anything) 2) age of the Earth / Earth history 3) evolution / devlopment of life on Earth & 4) humanity's role on the Earth (do we hold "dominion" over it to do as we will, or are we another creature, albeit a bit brighter...well, at least a better tool maker/user)
I am not going to be "sneaky" about my asking, it is obvious...I am curious as to whether they are learning science or religion painted as science - as these are the areas where that sort of argument occurs. I would think that if these children are either NOT being taught anything in these areas, OR if they are being taught things far afield from the mainstream of science, then a disservice is being done not just to these children, but also to society as a whole by the willful propagation of ignorance. What brings this up is that I just this past week found a student (in my second PT job at a rural community college) a student who earnestly believes in a 6,000 year old Earth - cause that's what his parents taught him! That age of the Earth kinda fell out of favor...oh I don't know, like the late 1700s?
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 12:16am
It should be comforting to you that there are issues that people vote for that transcend personal wealth. Reps have recently discovered that, DEMS still have not grasped that concept.
Posted by CPT 09/21/2005 @ 08:22am
Your capacity for self-deception never ceases to amaze me! Dems, and the Left in general, have always voted for issues that transcend personal wealth to a much greater degree than Repubs, bascially since the Johnson's Great Society and the Civil Rights crusade.
Take, for example, environmentalism. Hell, the only reason we promote the economic benefits of environmentalism is to get the GOP to go along with it!!!!
The social safety net is another example. Then there is the balanced budget. The Left in this country was against all of Bush's tax cuts from day one in part to avoid the monster deficits we have now. I remember right after the first Bush tax cut a Republican actress, Patricia Healy, was on Jay Leno bragging about how she helped get the tax cuts by voting for Bush. She wasn't bragging about how she helped bring "values" back to the White House. No, it was all about the kaching ching $$$
I later calculated that her tax cut was more than my annual salary...
How can you continue to spout such baloney? I mean, you're an educated man, right?
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 12:26am
ILP:
Do you think LIBSARENUTS and LIBSARENUTTY are the same person? I sure do... they spout the same worthless bile, and have very similar, offensive names. I wonder...
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/21/2005 @ 9:49pm
Definitely! But he is here for entertainment, so I take his posts the same way - for entertainment. When he isn't stirring things up he can have some quite normal postings.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 12:41am
The relly funny thing is, I am a full-contact fighter, a la UFC/PRIDE, and the worst injury I ever had so far doing that was a broken nose.
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/21/2005 @ 9:48pm
See that, Governor Arnold? Manly men are progressive.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 12:42am
LEFTOFCENTER Let me add that the german theological scholarship of the 1800's put to rest the myth that the Bible is the literal word of God. Some choose not to let the research interfere with their fundamentalism.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/22/2005 @ 12:46am
ILP
I know....just want to see where these home-schoolers are hanging. I suspect (but only suspect) that a larger proponent of the home-schooled have been handed "non-science" in certain areas and thus perpetuating both ignorance and the the divide between "us and them."
In the vein of this thread..."we can do better."
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 06:49am
don't assume that home schooled kids and parents are religious loons. some may be but here in NYC the home schoolers are progressive overachievers. and as I pointed out before, that the kids are less "social" is a myth. there are plenty of after school activities, such a little league baseball, that teach kids to fit in with groups.
of course this thread is for entertainment, and I don't begrudge anyone even the loopiest posts. but knockleheads who use this space for their cut and paste artistry and who are on top of that hopelessly doctrinaire, get the chop from me.
also those that make reckless assertions and then are nowhere to be found when they've been refuted, well they're intellectual cowards and they need to be called on it. you know who they are and so do they
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/22/2005 @ 07:59am
Johan
thanks....I guess there are places where *some* people make enough to not have 2 income streams....(although precious little of that in my neck-o-the-woods). However, as a science grad student / CC instructor I am agog at the wealth of scientific ignorance and disconnection out there. Sure, I can appreciate that most folks don't NEED a deep grounding in the sciences but to ignore the prevailing beliefs of science (or to basically "not care") is just amazing in the darkest of ways to me. Sure, I didn't *want* to take some of the courses in my undergrad core, but I recognize the need to *know* and did well in them. To actually run into students who *really* believe in a 6,000 year old Earth is astonishing! I am hopeful I can lift him out of such ignorance, but as it begins to rub against the religious underpinnings where such misguided belief is rooted, I fear I may lose his attention entirely.
As to intellectual cowardice....yes, I have often noticed when a real qustion is posed, the other side scatters like roaches under the fridge when the lights go on....
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 09:33am
Paul Wellstone was a perfect whipping boy for the Right because he was (My God!) an unrepentent, unadulterated, proud liberal. They just couldn't believe anyone could be that way after all those glorious Reagan years.
Posted by hhemwm at 09/22/2005 @ 10:17am
I am hoping Bernie Sanders will bring that Wellstonian common sense back into the senate. I surely do miss "Senator Paul."
Posted by hhemwm at 09/22/2005 @ 10:18am
As for those who call for giving conservatives a chance, this progressive agrees. Many red County Democrats are genuine conservatives. People who are tied more closely to the the production machinery of the U.S, who understand instinctively the need for a strong participatory economy. In contrast, proper conservatives CAN NOT attain delegate status at GOP precinct and district conventions in many, if not most, traditonal GOP red Counties and States. One very appropriate knock on reactionary liberals has been that they seem to assume that there is this big pile of money that falls upon the U.S. every morning, and that the task of govt. is no more than to see that it gets distributed fairly. The irony with the Bush administration and the GOP leadership of today is that the coalition of the neoconservatives and the social radicals has made them the true believers in the myth of the "big pile". It should kill them politically, but only will if progressives and social liberals somehow come to an understanding of the language needed to communicate with the millions of personally conservative middle Americans who tend to vote for the wolf who sits outside their door. As economic and cultural suicide to be sure, but still, because the wolf knows how to talk to them. I see no indication of anyone in the DNC or the DLC leadership who understands that or who is seeking to learn and refine that language, as Paul Wellstone did.
Paul Wellstone cut his political teeth in (my) Minnesota Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party, not at some forerunner of MoveOn (of which I am a member, btw) or The Democratic Leadership Council. He favored, to quote, "a hand up, not a hand out.". The book which he credits most for inspiring his politcal views, "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men", was a chronicle of how the plutacracy and accomanying and complicnet corporatist administrations had failed the people. The good Senator's experiences in the Midwest through the "farm crisis" of the Reagan years finely tuned his understanding of the coming economic and cultural disaster that is to be found today in the concentration and consolidation of industrial agriculture and "factory farming". The inevitable decay that comes along with unbridled absentee ownership.
Paul Wellstone was the ONLY pol I've known of who grasped that situation and understood, instinctively so it seemed, that what he saw was a foretaste of the future of retail, of health care, of the fate of labor movement and levels of compensation for productive activities. We are running defecits today not because of the leak in the barrel that is a welfare State, but because the plutocracy has put and is continuing to put into place through Congress the mechanisms by which, at some point of no possible salvage of a participatory and equitable working economy, they will be able to "run off with the bank". At the drop of a hat.
Paul Wellstone would have been screaming from the rooftops over those issues, and he would have been speaking calmy and somberly of The War and of the failure of the nepotism plagued buearacracies in recent days. God, I miss him. Every day. I've never missed him so much as during the discussions of the Bankruptcy Bill and the Bush tax cuts.
"I just look around, and he's gone".
Posted by brucej at 09/22/2005 @ 11:25am
I find it comforting to believe all you contributers are subscribers to The Nation; educated to a greater or lesser extent and consciously or subconsciously "educat(ing) yourselves for the coming struggles" as Mary Harris (Mother) Jones advised.
Having used my second most valuable commodity, my time, which is only second to my/our health, for reading most of the voluminous postings above, I naturally wish to add...something.
So, here: "Life is the art of drawing sufficient conclusions from insufficient premises" - Samuel Butler
I'm confident that's concluding enough for most of you.
Felicitations, from a "working class hero" wannabe.
LAWMAN
Posted by lewwelge at 09/22/2005 @ 11:40am
Meanwhile the Pentagon is currently seeking to block the testimony of previous military intel officers that have evidence that they knew about at least four of the terrorists previous to 911. Remember that Bush had to be shamed into accepting the 911 commission ! Now it appears to be rendered feckless by all those who are covering their asses! The PDM report from FEMA published in 2000 predicted the 3 most likely disasters; an attack on New York , a flood in New Orleans and an earthquake in San Fransisco! The report was buried in congress and ignored by Bush! If their is an earthquake Bush will hit the disaster trifecta! So to all you apologist for Bush that give the old CONDY RICE excuse, " we could never have predicted this" I can only say WAKE UP!...
Remember a guy flew a Cessna into the White House before 911! Hell, these guys couldn't predict the sun coming up tommarrow!......
OK, I have to get back to building my bomb shelter!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 09/22/2005 @ 1:07pm
To LEFTOFCENTER:
You say, "...I can appreciate that most folks don't NEED a deep grounding in the sciences." Yes, but they do NEED the ability to think rationally -- like a scientist. I have pledged the remainder of my life to that goal and have created Smart Science to that end.
I hope to offer a homeschool version soon. We can think in many ways. Not to be able to think scientifically is like having a tool box without a hammer. You can handle lots of chores, but you miss out on some vital ones. You are missing what Carl Sagan called a "baloney detection kit."
Our schools have, for the most part, stopped encouraging thought among students. Can I really reverse this process? Maybe not, but I must try.
Posted by adr at 09/22/2005 @ 5:08pm
FRANKGRITS:
I'm glad you said it first. I was afraid I was the only conspiracy nut on this site.
Isn't it strangely coincidental that all the progressive activists and representatives that really matter somehow end up dying under strange circumstances?
Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 6:32pm
Hillary Rotten Clinton has spoken....what a disgrace she and B.J are these days
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES Thu Sep 22 2005 18:54:45 ET
The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.
The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.
In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.
When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.
It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.
Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 8:02pm
Wouldnt a debate between Hillery Rotten & Algore be a site to behold...
IF THAT DON'T BEAT AL
By DEBORAH ORIN September 22, 2005 -- AS SEN. Hillary Rotten Clinton ratchets up her attacks on President Bush, some Democrats think they smell an explanation: the threat of a 2008 Al Gore presidential bid that could come at her from the left on Iraq.
The former vice president is suddenly re-emerging as a vocal and visible Bush-basher -- he's slated to star at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser for big donors in Washington next Tuesday.
"He's keeping a very strong public profile. He was the first major Democrat to oppose the Iraq war. He's keeping in touch around the country and doing a lot of speeches.
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 9:10pm
Please quit responding to my posts by referring to someone else.. Yes it would be a dream come true...Bring it on
Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 9:39pm
Actually, clinton-clinton is by far the strongest ticket the democrats have.
And yes, if I read it correctly, while William Jefferson Clinton cannot be elected president again, there is nothing that would prevent him from becoming president by succession.
Any constitutional experts care to weigh in?
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 9:45pm
Anyway, back to wellstone...
I was raised poor. Pretty nearly dirt poor. No shoes poor. Had a subsistence farm, and ate OK, but not well, at times.
Worked my way through college.
Got a job.
Make more than most people.
But the majority of my family lives in single-wide mobile homes.
My uncle Alton is well off. He has a double-wide.
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 9:49pm
I appreciate the concern that the democratic party has for poor folks.
I think they really mean it. (some of them, anyway).
But I doubt if their policies will result in anything more than more and worse poverty.
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 9:51pm
The biggest problem today is the breakdown of families.
Makes lots of kids poor.
Women heading households. Ruins the kids, (not always, but often).
Providing more money only makes it worse.
Lots of well intentioned idiots doing social engineering.
And the children are the ones who suffer.
Paul Wellstone, rest in peace. I hope you are in a better place. I don't think you would have made this place better, if you had survived.
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 9:54pm
FRANKGRITS:
My dream ticket would be Bernie Sanders for POTUS, and Robert Kennedy, Jr. as veep (so that he wouldn't get assassinated... that's right, I said it...)
Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 9:59pm
JONB:
You said:
The biggest problem today is the breakdown of families. Makes lots of kids poor. Women heading households. Ruins the kids, (not always, but often). Providing more money only makes it worse. Lots of well intentioned idiots doing social engineering. And the children are the ones who suffer.
My response:
I agree that one of the worst problems our society faces is the breakdown in the familial unit. However, I disagree with most of the other things you said in that post.
First, families are breaking apart for a number of reasons, mot notably economics. Wages have stagnated for the past 35 years, nd it is almost impossible to raise a family on one income nowadays. The simple fact of the matter is, most jobs don't pay enough. Service jobs are notoriously low-wage low- or no-benefit situations. Even when a family has two wage-earners, it isn't much better. In fact, often, that is worse, because there is no one there at home to help socialize the children, and discipline them accordingly. The single most oft-cited reason for marriages breaking up is... bingo... money. Now, before you start blaming these people's rampant consumerism, understand that we live in a vastly different worl than our parents, or even their parents before them. We are inundated by marketing from the moment we awaken to the moment we fall asleep. Add to that the income disparity between men and women, and then also blacks and whites, and you get a vastly different picture of why families are self-destructing all around us. Perhaps if you would stop blaming the victims, and start looking at the actual root cause of most of society's ills, you might have a better understanding of the world around you.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 10:06pm
ADR
Here, here and brav-o! Just found out that 40% (4 out of 10) of my class believes in a young Earth. Gonna be a fun semester...
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 10:14pm
ADR
PS....I noticed no other home-schoolers addressed the root post...
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 10:16pm
LEFTOFCENTER:
Where do you teach?
Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 10:22pm
I was describing what happens.
Actually, I don't think I blamed anyone.
It is a difficult society to live and raise a family in. I do know that. I have done it, with limited success.
The reasons it is so difficult are mostly due to social engineering.
Well intentioned idiots.
First on the list are those who scorn traditional values, like sexual modesty, self restraint, and basic morality.
Resulting in promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, and other such issues. The children suffer.
Then the do gooders (mostly democrats) who for so many years paid poor women to have illegitimat children. So generous and kind of them.
Then the folks who figured that it made sense to set up "no fault" divorce laws. Allowing any person who could get custody of at least two children from an employed spouse to become a "stay at home" parent.
Whenever the government has gotten involved, it has made things worse.
It is the good master to all the poor slaves. Disgusting.
Now, for those in government, it is fun, playing the good master. And your slaves love (and vote for) you.
I know there are poor people who don't fall into the categories just described.
But the main cause of children living in poverty is children being raised in single parent households. Yuo can check the statistics on that.
But actually, being poor isn't all that bad. I've been poor.
The worse consequences of all this social engineering are the destruction in the lives of people whose families are destroyed.
Nearly every addiction I have encountered is rooted in a failure of love. Most often because of difficult parent-child relationships.
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 10:26pm
JONB:
Are you really trying to make the case that "traditional values" prevent promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, and other such issues? Apparently you have never spent much time around Southern Baptists or Catholics. Both typically vote for Republicans, but are famous for social engineering (social engineering isn't the sole realm of the government, mind), and both are famous for promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce (well, annulment in Catholic circles)... Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Now, am I going to say that social engineering is a wonderful thing? Obviously not. But to use that as reason for not having a government that provides a social welfare net to provide protection for the least of us is just plain Puritanical of you... and we all know how great they were...
Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 10:33pm
I'm talking about mainstream culture and politics.
It has little to do with religion.
Or party affiliation.
But our blessed progressives have been on the leading edge defending and enabling this destructuion in american culture.
I'm not saying it was perfect 50 years ago.
But it has gotten worse, not better.
And to return to the point, to a large extent, the poverty which we see results from failure to lead conservative (socially) lives.
People are so wealthy in this nation. Yet they are poor.
And the generational effects will be devastating, unles people repent. (a practical term, not essentially religous, though true religion sometimes helps people to find repentance)
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 10:43pm
JONB:
No. Wrong. There is so much poverty in this nation because people are getting exploited. Period. And 50 years ago, we had separate but equal laws on the books. We had lynchings. We had women unable to support themselves financially if their husband decided to step out on them or leave. Actually, we still have that to a great extent now, just not quite as bad.
The funny thing is, most of the people I know who live socially conservative lives are among the poorest people I know. Maybe God does have a sense of irony.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/22/2005 @ 10:47pm
JOR
I'm an adunct at a podunk Community College in far south IL. Not quite the Bible "belt", but I believe its adjacent to the navel and if I squint southwards I can see the buckle!
(adjunct faculty: PT temp...I figure between my 3 PT no-benefit jobs, I am experiencing the zenith of Repulican job creation benefits!)
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 11:16pm
I remember, where I grew up, there weren't any lynchings. Never saw one. Never heard much about them.
I remember, going to college, and meeting a kid in the dorms who was kinda messed up. Someone took me aside and explained to me that he had come from a "broken home". Then it made sense. That was in 1976.
Now that kid would be normal.
There is exploitation. Particularly of illegal immigrants. And they drag down the wage scale, and prevent the native born from making a living wage. Can't really blame them. But it is so.
BUt check out what percentage of those children living in poverty come from single parent homes. It is a national disaster. Shameful.
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 11:20pm
And God does have a great sense of irony.
"Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith, and to inherit the kingdom that he has prepared for those who love him?"
Also a strong sense of social justice.
"Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be filled."
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 11:25pm
later
Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 11:26pm
JonB
Tell that to the Aztecs.....your Cortez's Christian charity drive was real kind to them...
Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 11:30pm
Posted by JONB 09/22/2005 @ 10:26pm:
It is a difficult society to live and raise a family in. I do know that. I have done it, with limited success.
The reasons it is so difficult are mostly due to social engineering.
How? This is quite a claim - please back it up with research.
Well intentioned idiots.
First on the list are those who scorn traditional values, like sexual modesty, self restraint, and basic morality.
So you are blaming other people's "bad morals" for the problems of the poor? Doesn't make any sense. I live in the same country you do, and the "well-intentioned idiots who scorn values, etc." don't make me commit crimes or not work or not pay my bills. I am a solid citizen. So are you. If what you are saying were true, then why isn't everyone in the country a poor, single parent?
Resulting in promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, and other such issues. The children suffer.
True, children suffer in divorce. But divorce is the fault of the kid's parents, not some imagined social engineer. Promiscuity is due to the sex drive, which is the second strongest drive for most if not all animal species, right behind self-preservation. People are promiscuous because they like sex and have powerful sex drives, and choose to act on it. Has nothing to do with the "boogie man" social engineers you have invented to blame.
Then the do gooders (mostly democrats) who for so many years paid poor women to have illegitimat children. So generous and kind of them
First you blast people for doing "evil", now you attack people for doing "good." Doesn't make sense. And people don't have children because they are paid to. If that were the case, what about the people who pay out of their own pocket? They should all be childless by your logic.
Then the folks who figured that it made sense to set up "no fault" divorce laws. Allowing any person who could get custody of at least two children from an employed spouse to become a "stay at home" parent.
So if your spouse turns out to be worthless, you should be forced to stay married and pay for your mistake the rest of your life?
Whenever the government has gotten involved, it has made things worse.
A sweeping generalization with no research to back it up.
It is the good master to all the poor slaves. Disgusting.
Now, for those in government, it is fun, playing the good master. And your slaves love (and vote for) you.
I know there are poor people who don't fall into the categories just described.
But the main cause of children living in poverty is children being raised in single parent households. Yuo can check the statistics on that.
But actually, being poor isn't all that bad. I've been poor.
The worse consequences of all this social engineering are the destruction in the lives of people whose families are destroyed.
Nearly every addiction I have encountered is rooted in a failure of love. Most often because of difficult parent-child relationships.
You don't really have an argument. You have speculation and emotional reactions that aren't based on any research or data, just anecdotal and very very limited experiences.
It is a hodgepodge of guesswork, with a conservative slant that is probably due to your religious beliefs.
I mean no offense, really I don't. I've met lots of people whose politics comes from something they heard someone else say, and it sounds good or strikes a chord, and so they make it their own. Shouldn't do that. People should only form their political views after doing thorough research on the topic in question, IMO.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 12:42am
And to return to the point, to a large extent, the poverty which we see results from failure to lead conservative (socially) lives.
People are so wealthy in this nation. Yet they are poor.
And the generational effects will be devastating, unles people repent. (a practical term, not essentially religous, though true religion sometimes helps people to find repentance)
Posted by JONB 09/22/2005 @ 10:43pm
When I was a poor undergrad, I repented. Lived a godly, conservative life. Eventually I deeply researched the theology I believed for so long, and found out it was a load of crap. I became an atheist. I began living quite a wild lifestyle.
I now make more money than I ever have.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 12:48am
"Are you really trying to make the case that "traditional values" prevent promiscuity, illegitimacy, divorce, and other such issues?"
Do you believe that they have no effect?
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 09/23/2005 @ 12:26am
They sure had an effect on me. My stepmother is a fundamentalist evangelical christian, and she was my worst nightmare. That abusive bitch made all my Summers spent visiting my father about as miserable as they could be.
She can take her "traditional values" and shove 'em up her ass, for all I care. My childhood would have been a million times better without them.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 12:55am
The Wellstone memorial is located very near the crash site just south of Eveleth Minnesota. I have been following construction progress all summer and now that it is complete, I recommend a visit. The memorial will be dedicated Sunday September 25.
Posted by zotty at 09/23/2005 @ 02:36am
Rupert Murdoch's London Times continues its assault on GOP policy, this time fiscal. Keep an eye on Fox News -- it can only be a matter of time before Baron Murdoch's other media organs begin to reflect their master's growing unease at implacable Republican stupidity.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1793218,00.html
Posted by inveresk at 09/23/2005 @ 08:56am
We're a sorting and selecting society, undergirded by a triadic "emotional process" which rewards those adaptive folk/types who are most "anxious" to survive/thrive.
Defining the ambiguous terms in each unique context is a luxuriously recreational intellectual exercise for which I, for one, am grateful.
Feliz Viernes, trabajadores!
LAWMAN
Posted by lewwelge at 09/23/2005 @ 10:16am
Jonb, how do you know that women heading households ruins children? Where is the data on that? What I have heard reported is that single parent households are not as strong as those with two parents, but even if both parents are women the kids fare far better than if there is only one woman or one man. Do you mean single parent homes in general ruin kids because seldom are single parent homes led by men?
Posted by hhemwm at 09/23/2005 @ 10:58am