Slagsvol responds, I answer

Tom Slagsvol's letter as printed (and my response in BOLD) in the Georgetown Times:

Mr. Sanderson pretends to offer solutions using specious arguments and name calling. He refuses to admit why his political heroes send their children to private school.

You didn't ask why they sent them to private schools, Tom. You only stated a observation. I provided an answer. But since you want to get specific, I'll answer this as well. It's a choice, Tom, for them to send their children to a private school to avoid the constant attention, scrutiny and disruption that would be caused in a public school. Furthermore, they pay for it. Not us. The Republicans would love to have us pay for the rich to send their children to private schools with tax-payer assisted vouchers.

It's simple, Jamie, they want their children to get a good education, and they know it's available in private schools.

They want ALL children to get a good education. I see you didn't want to touch the fact that this state only requires a "minimally adequate" education. That's like going to a minimally adequate doctor for a life-saving surgery. Give me a break. Plus, not all private schools provide a "good" education. Why? Because they go unregulated. There's no certification and they can teach whatever they want, often leading to a heavy religious study.

Your solution of higher taxes and government monopoly has been proven wrong.

Where? Show me? The higher taxes? It's only higher to you because you'd have to kiss the very low tax cuts you get now goodbye. Going back to the norm would offset a lot of the deficit we now suffer from here in the state. You also keep blabbing about this "government monopoly" people are supposed to fear. Then why do the people not fear the "government monopolized" police force, fire department or their postal service? Your rhetoric is played out.

Jamie believes liberals in charge will result in better schools. That's an easy one to debunk.

Just look at states run by liberals. Michigan and Louisiana come to mind.

Tom, you've really got me laughing here. Seriously? Have you heard of Bobby Jindal? He's the governor of Louisiana. He's a Republican, Tom. I also would not consider Democratic governor Jay Nixon of Michigan a liberal. I am not really surprised you'd pick these two states. I'll explain...

Their government schools are doing a terrible job. Who would want to send a child to school in Detroit or New Orleans; only people with no choice.

You pick Detroit, knowing that the city is suffering from a mass exodus of jobs and opportunities, and New Orleans, a city left abandoned by former president George W. Bush. How quaint. Again, the people of these fine cities had choice until the Republicans decided to ship jobs overseas, tax cut in order to turn surpluses in deficits and abandon thousands of people after a natural disaster which lead to residents being permanently disbanded. Statewide, students in both states score highly on SAT tests and this has been proven yearly.

There are plenty of liberal states doing a lot better than us right now because their schools are properly funded and the leaders of those states care enough to support public education for the children living there by providing up-to-date schools, 100 percent of the materials for each schools and support for the teachers in those schools.

Then he goes to spending. Jamie says if we spend more money we will have better schools. Lets look at Washington, D.C.

If you fund the public schools properly, you will have better schools. And for your myth about Washington D.C. public schools, I'll be more than happy to "debunk" you on this:

Common belief: DCPS has the highest per pupil spending in the nation.
Finding: Myth. Although it is higher than national and most state averages, per pupil spending in D.C. is similar to or lower than spending in its more affluent neighbors and in several other large cities.

Even with federal funding included, DCPS spends less per pupil than neighboring districts Arlington County and Alexandria City. Without the federal funding that supports some of its many low-income pupils, DCPS spends less per pupil than any of its four high-performing neighbors districts -- Fairfax County, Montgomery County, Arlington and Alexandria. (Spending per pupil is a function, in part, of the cost of living in any given area. Because the D.C. metropolitan area is substantially higher than the national average, salaries of teachers and other staff, as well as the cost of most goods and services, are higher than average figures for most other areas of the country).

Their schools are run by liberals spending more per child than anywhere else in the nation. The result; failing schools. Liberals always want more money, and deliver ever worsening schools.

Already disproved that notion, but here's more... (And if you want the truth on D.C. public schools, it is here and here.)

Geographic cost differentials: Costs of education are especially high in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states and DCPS? stiffest competition for teachers and principals is with the surrounding suburbs. Some cities elsewhere in the country have comparably high costs, but many do not. The ACCRA Cost of Living Index, the standard index of geographical differences, for Washington, D.C. is 133.2 ? one third higher than the national average and higher than all but a handful of cities in the index.1 A higher cost of living requires schools in this metropolitan area
to pay higher salaries ? which form the bulk of their budgets ? and higher prices for locally provided goods and services.

Jamie loves the class warfare. You know the mantra "Tax the rich, and give it to me. I deserve everything free."

There is a class warfare out there. Where have you been? Unless you are rich, you'd know about the people who loved going to work everyday to take care of a family to literally find out their job was shipped overseas and they would not be needed anymore. How about locally, where hundreds of steelworkers will go out on the street. The hundreds of thousands jobless in America were working, Tom. They were doing their part unfairly paying more taxes while the rich got off like criminals. You can frame it with coding if you'd like, but a majority of this country see through it.

He says we don't need a tax cut; because Obama gave us one. Really? Obama sent 300 dollars to millions of Americans who don't pay taxes. That's not a tax cut, it's welfare.

Again, where's your proof? I have mine. It's here. Using this nonpartisan site, I find that my income tax cut (with my wages, etc.) is $468.76. It was about $200 more with McCain, but I don't mind paying taxes to support this country and the services we all enjoy. Do you?

And here's more proof that tax cuts went to working people, Tom.

And yes, Jamie, I know the difference between you and daddy. There is no difference.

There is. It's sad that you live in a world where you think you know me because of a last name rather than actually meeting me face to face to have a conversation. I am a lot different from my father in ways you'll never know.

You both want bigger government, higher taxes for other people, and more control over our lives with union bosses in charge.

To be perfectly honest, my father is lightly conservative compared to me. I am a liberal. Proud to be one. If you haven't learned your lesson about deregulating everything and basing life on free markets with no protection, you are lost. President Obama gave 95 percent of working Americans a tax cut this year, so that "higher taxes" rhetoric doesn't fly. The statehouse here in S.C. even passed a budget with a tax increase, to my dismay. I do feel we need to repeal the tax cuts and bring them back to normal rates. I also feel all people need to be taxed accordingly, not the poor being taxed more than the rich - as eight years of Bush and Sanford proved.

You demonize sucessful working famlies, and reward failure. That's your solution?

Tom, are really wanting to go with that? What to do label unsuccessful working families? I would hate to find out. Not all people live with picket fences. I know I don't. The rewarding of failure started with Bush and the bank bailouts - of which our Congressman Henry Brown voted for. The only demonizng being done is by a governor who wants to get stimulated rather than stimulating the state he serves.

And finally dear readers; you know you have won the argument when your opponent starts calling you names. Jamie called me confused, delusional, demeaning, and uninformed.

Boo hoo. As if your "liberal" wording wasn't meant to insult me. It doesn't. I know what being a liberal means and what it stands for. Unfortunately, you don't. I didn't call you names. I stated the obvious. And Tom, you pretty much lived up to each categorization.

Jamie you bore me.

Tom Slagsvol

Georgetown

And you bore me. Your falsehood is no match for the truth. This state suffers from a lethargic attitude produced by the GOP here. The brainwashing with social issues to fear the people from voting their pocketbooks and wallets is really laughable to others outside the state, but a dagger in the hearts to people here. I provided facts, stats and examples. You continue with the rhetoric as if no one will research it. Why? Because we all know the GOP love the people of South Carolina dumb. If they didn't, Democratic people and leaders alike would not be pushing to change the status quo here in the state.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Muppets, avec fireworks

current-events

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/VVct/~3/9cLrBGcgQ04/muppets-avec-firework
s.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Code Rose

Reader Dave writes about the "code noir":

Your post about making DADT more "humane" reminded me of The Code Noir. Back in the day, slavery as practiced in French colonies like New Orleans was considered more humane than that throughout the rest of the South. Slaves were given certain rights and priveleges unheard of in other parts of the South. Some excerpts (per Wikipedia):

- slave husband and wife (and their prepubescent children) under the same master are not to be sold separately (art. 47)
- slave masters 20 years of age (25 years without parental permission) may free their slaves (art. 55)
- slaves who are declared to be sole legatees by their masters, or named as executors of their wills, or tutors of their children, shall be held and considered as freed slaves (art. 56)
- freed slaves are French subjects, even if born elsewhere (art. 57)
- freed slaves have the same rights as French colonial subjects (art. 59)
- masters must give food (quantities specified) and clothes to their slaves, even when they are sick or old (art. 22 - 27)
- (unclear) a master who falsely accuses a slave of a crime and has the slave put to death will be fined (art. 40)
- masters may chain and beat slaves but may not torture nor mutilate them (art. 42)
- masters who kill their slaves will be punished (art. 43)

In the context of slavery, one could certainly argue that some of the rights granted here were exceedingly generous. But that doesn't change the basic fact that they were still practicing slavery plain and simple. No one in their right mind nowadays would argue that this form of slavery is acceptable because it's more "humane." And while I don't mean to compare DADT to slavery, I really am dumbstruck that anyone could think that a more "humane" form of DADT would be similarly acceptable.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Health Care Rationing is Here

The debate on the health care bill is so often snagged on talking points that have been around since Truman. A government health care plan will lead to bureaucrats rationing our health care!

"I don't think many Americans want to start having to wait in line [or] start getting government permission for procedures," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said last month on CBS's Face the Nation.

All too often, reporters are willing to accept that hoary old chestnut as the end of the discussion, so when Scott Horsley at NPR takes a deeper look at that idea, it's... refreshing.

But some doctors and economists argue that, in effect, the U.S. health care system is already rationing, in the most unproductive ways.

"In America, we strictly ration health care. We've done it for years," says Dr. Arthur Kellermann, professor of emergency medicine and associate dean for health policy at Emory University School of Medicine. "But in contrast to other wealthy countries, we don't ration medical care on the basis of need or anticipated benefit. In this country, we mainly ration on the ability to pay. And that is especially evident when you examine the plight of the uninsured in the United States."

Anyone who gets their medical care through insurance today has experienced this rationing. It's far from invisible. You can see your doctor only if they fit the criteria of your plan. And every appointment, every referral, every test, every prescription is subject to the rationing of the insurance company.  That's for people who have insurance. For those without...

Kellermann still remembers the young mother of two who came into his emergency room more than 15 years ago, suffering from a hemorrhagic stroke.

"We worked for 90 minutes to save her life, but basically she had burst a blood vessel in her head. She didn't have a chance," he says. "She had no health insurance, and when the money got tight, she had to make a choice — she could either buy the groceries for her kids, or she was going to buy the three blood pressure medicines she had to take every day."

Sadly, Kellermann says, for less than the cost of that futile, 90-minute effort in the ER, the woman could have had all the blood pressure medication she needed for the rest of her life. It was not a government bureaucrat who decided she should forgo treatment until it was too late — it was her own lack of health insurance that led her to make that choice.

Horsley's report doesn't break new ground. It doesn't delve into obscure statistics or show health care from an unexpected angle.

Instead it shows us the health care system we all know -- one that's already bounded by a severe rationing system that gives little consideration to anything but dollars.  What's extraordinary about the report is that it describes the health care system we all know and live with, not the one that fantasy system that McConnell pretends we have.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

A BLINGNUT RANT.

Someone forwarded this post from one of my favorite blingnuts (that's a black wingnut in case you were wondering) antagonist. I wanted to share his essay because I believe in understanding divergent points of views and because I wanted to exuviate my ideological bigot label.

So here goes:

"I have noticed that the best way to evaluate what the PRIORITIES of a given set of people is to sit back and watch the PRIORITIES that they promote to the top in the absence of a countervailing force to keep them in line. For the Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser - he has insured that any countervailing force has been driven out of the leadership of his key institutions and the media that is customized for his own consumption. IRONICALLY this also means that, more than ever before, his present course is a function of his own PRIORITIES and BIASES than any other force.


Unfortunately the self echo chamber that he has established in which all other views have been exterminated out ALSO MEANS that upon seeing certain problems that continue to occur WITHIN HIS DOMAIN OF CONTROL he will use his propaganda machine to shift the blame upon forces that reside on the outside.I don't blame the propagandist. He is going to do what he is going to do. Ultimately the MASSES OF PEOPLE who are suffering are the problem. They have accepted certain MESSAGES of RESENTMENT as their own messages - their NARRATIVE, if you will. They have settled upon a leadership machine that operates off of these messages.

This machine knows what the people want and feed it too them with mass quantities.From the graphic above I see a priority upon Attacks On Clarence Thomas and all other Conservatives because they are threats to the ideological monopoly that the BQPFRC rests upon. They see the "Hypocrite" that fails to live up to his own standard as their poster boy. His function is NOT to lift the people up toward a higher standard so that the boy can "PROGRESS". Instead he is dragged around town on the back of their horse to show the consequences of those who JUDGE! They are more interested in having everyone mind their own business with the function of allowing certain violators to keep doing their thing. They enjoy "company in the mud with them" than they have any goals of lifting everyone out of the mud, with those who reside within as the EXCEPTION. By making the exception into the rule - everyone can gain a bit of comfort.The murder count in Philadelphia after 6 months of the year represents a report card on their failed social and economic policies. History shows that the people who died behind these homicide numbers are 80% African American.

Thus about 115 Black people who celebrated Barack Obama's election are no longer with us in this world - having been killed. Ironically while the first Black Attorney General has been silent on the murder spree that is snatching up Black lives around the nation - he was recently moved to speak out after 3 people who were motivated by HATE chose to kill for political purposes. Sadly the "continuing murder of the average Negro" does not qualify as an emergency. This unless he gets a job at the Holocaust Museum and thus HIS KILLER adds value to his life. Why fret though? This is exactly what the Civil Rights Industrial Complex has asked that our government focus upon as a priority.

This homicide count in just one city in America represents the neglect about the people that BQPFRC purports to care for who they say are "neglected" by society. Question is: WHO IS "SOCIETY" but themselves and the people who control the social and government institutions that these same people live under?In a perverted cycle of life - the presence of heightened grievances from the same people they preside over with their ideological norms present an opening for them to actually STRENGTHEN THEIR HOLD over the very people they are failing by highlighting these grievances and REDIRECTING them upon another domain. This domain just happens to be the expanded political domain that they desire to take control over.

Thus the masses of aggrieved individuals serve as "useful idiots" to help these operatives accomplish their goals of POLITICAL POWER and IDEOLOGICAL DOMINATION that fronts as individual concern.In the debates against Clarence Thomas only rarely is there an insightful critique of his judicial rulings and why they believe he is not only WRONG but "constitutionally wrong". On occasion there can be found a commenter that talks about how his strategy serves to undercut the STRATEGY that Blacks have depended upon for power (ie: Affirmative Action).

Sadly, the bulk of the responses in a Clarence Thomas discussion are personal attacks against the man. They talk about his White wife, they talk about how he is not comfortable with his race (these same people love the late Michael Jackson - and bestow "full Black rights" upon him. A testament to their objectiveness ), they say that he is inferior to the other White conservative who serves as his mental guide."

More here.

Ahhh the blingut, always defending Clarence Thomas. Now here is a serious question: Can anyone from the right, ANYONE, black or white, tell me what your party would do to improve the plight of people who are poor in urban A-merry-ca and poor people in general?

BTW, I like that acronym; BQFRC. Now if we could just leave out the Q we would be on to something.


Thanks for the link Kesha.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

See You in September CIA Wants to Stall IG Report
All Summer

CIA wants to stall all summer before it releases the IG report.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/02/cia-wants-to-stall-all-summer-on-ig-
report/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Did you know that Red States lead in something
Guess what....

From my pal Lisa Derrick: Family Values? Red States Lead in Divorce, Teen Pregnancy and Online Porn

What is astounding is the New York Times chart which takes politicians out of the mix and breaks it down into the values that the Right espouses: Anti-divorce, anti-porn and anti-teen sex. Well gosh, even with my admittedly and embarrassingly bad math skills, it's clear that eight out of the ten states with highest rates in the categories of divorce, teen pregnancy and online porn usage were states where McCain came out ahead in the 2008 election.

Ahhhh, help...we need more teabaggers to save us...

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Once More On Preventive Detention

This post from Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice guestblogged at Balkinization is a very good explanatory of why the issue is such a difficult one in current times. The key graf for me:

The U.S. thus has authority under domestic law to apply the same detention rule that the law of war establishes in international armed conflict. The problem with this arrangement is that the rules that apply in international armed conflict are a poor fit for the war we’re actually fighting. Wars against other nations differ from wars against irregular forces, and those differences are at least intuitively understood by the American public and the rest of the world.

Addressing arguments such as the ones I have made (and here), Goitein writes:

Some have argued that the answer is something in between the preventive detention model for prisoners of war in international armed conflict (i.e., detention for the duration of hostilities without any individualized assessment of dangerousness) and no preventive detention at all: a more constrained system of preventive detention, in which the government must prove future dangerousness in each case and the detention is subject to frequent review. Indeed, such a system would be at least partially consistent with the law of war, which authorizes the detention of civilians in international armed conflict under just such constraints. (I say “partially” because international armed conflicts, as noted above, are less likely to last forever.) But I’m not sure it would be consistent with our own concept of due process—specifically, the idea that people who are capable of controlling their own actions should not be subject to potentially endless detention based on predictions of “future dangerousness.” And that’s one reason why the debate on preventive detention is very far from over.

A very interesting piece and one that I am currently pondering.

Speaking for me only

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

John Bolton: There's Never a Bad Time to Attack
Iran

Another week, another John Bolton op-ed in a major newspaper, this time in the Washington Post, arguing for an Israeli attack on Iran. With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mydd/~3/xK7UFBxDoYc/5197

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

This 4th of July, "Give Peace a Chance"

The famous tune was penned by John Lennon and Yoko Ono 40 years ago this Saturday, July 4. It was at a Montreal bed-in that the song was recorded. Those in attendance included Timothy Leary, Dick Gregory, Petula Clark, Derek Taylor, Murray the K and[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/-ns2ngq4Hak/this-4th-of-july-give-pe
ace-a-chance

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!