I'm not sure if you know this, but you're actually supporting the GP's point, and not arguing against it. It wouldn't be the end of archaeology even if 99% of the world's population contributed to Wikipedia, because archaeologists would also care about the other 1%.
I don't think race was behind Senator Allen's comment, but rather his annoyance and revulsion that the opposing campaign would send a political monkey to videotape his campaign events.
I'm guessing that you're supposing that "macacca" as monkey could refer to "political monkey" and have no racial connotation. Not a bad explanation - too bad that Allen didn't think of it. He said that he had no idea was "macacca" even meant and it was a made up word to sound like "mohawk" since the Siddarth's haircut looked kind of like a mohawk (if you squint your eyes, shake your head really fast, and put your fingers in front of your face). It also happens to be a derogatory word that people from his mother's background use. So, I see three options here: (1) he meant it as political monkey but was too embarrased to admit it (not very likely), (2) he was trying to say "mohawka" and it came out "macacca" (yeah, right), or (3) he meant it in the way he's heard other people from his mother's culture use it and was too embarrassed to admit it. I think it's clear which one I think is most likely.
But I trust Na-Speaker Pelosi, Jack "Cut and Run" Murtha, Dick Durban, Hillary and others to quickly offend mainstream voters and ruin their chances in 2008.
Seems like someone's been drinking from the fountain of Fox News a little toooo deeply. I'm not saying it's not possible for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - it's their specialty - just that you're using the catch phrases that suggest you're not doing too much of your own thinking.
You do realize that we have you to thank for George Allen, don't you? He was born in Whittier, California. (This is not meant to be any kind of "carpet bagging" slur, as Webb was born in Missouri, and as for me, well, I was born in (West) Germany - as an army brat.)
He also used to have a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office (note: Allen was born in California and did not demonstrate any fealty to the Confederate "culture" prior to moving to Virginia), and two flags - the American flag (quite appropriate) and the Confederate battle flag (see previous note). Finally, he named his son "Forrest" as well. One could argue that his son Forrest could be named after anyone, but the fact that Allen himself had a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office definitely gives a strong clue as to who his son was named for.
wow, hanging up on auto dial takes up HOURS A DAY for me
However, before you can hang up, you first have to halt whatever you're doing (perhaps destroying a productive train of thought), go over to your phone, and answer it.
That said, I agree with you that I personally wouldn't sue anyone over this. However, kudos to those who do because it might mean that I have to endure this hassle less often. And, yes, I'm on the "do not call" list.
I just personally find suing about phone calls a waste of time (imo), and suing about toxic sludge being dumped illegally not a waste of time.
So, you're complaining that suing about phone calls (which waste your time) is... a waste of time. Is wasting time "bad", or not? More to the point, why is it bad in one case and not the other? Personally, I wouldn't be willing to waste my time suing over phone calls that waste my time, but if someone else chooses to (and in the process hopefully saves me time), more power to them. Of course, whether or not it's a waste of time is a matter of opinion, but I think the person whose time it is should be allowed to make that call (in general).
If your only complaint is that it's not worth your time, that's fine. However, it seemed that you thought it wasn't worth anyone's time, and that's a decision that can only be made by the individual.
My favorite trick was to hook up a set of pulleys that allowed one of the good kids (who got picked on) to easily win a tug-of-war with one of the football kids. Even though I had already taught this stuff, the "football kid" decided that the "good kid" must have won because I gave him the end with the better hold on it. So, I took off the string, reversed it, and let the good kid win the tug-of-war again (i.e., making sure he still had the bigger pulley). I'd like to think most of the kids in the class understood what was going on, even though this particular football player never figured it out (even after I explained it again).
Note: this is not meant to disparage those who play football. I have a friend here at UVA working on his Ph.D. in physics who played college football.
(A) The Brits have spelled it "spelt" for a long time, whereas we Americans have spelt it "spelled" for just as long.
(B) See this site. Evidently, it's Greek and Latin.
If I start with 20 meters = 69 pixels, then 1 km = 1450 pixels, or 1 km^2 = 2.1 Mpx. Ignoring the oceans (since they no doubt have far worse resolution), the Earth has a land area of > 148 million km^2. That comes out to about 148 M * 2.1 M px = 310 Tpx. If the ocean were at a similar resolution, it'd be about 1 petapixel.
First, fundamentally problem students can be gotten rid of, or at least could be. IIR, one kid got booted from the school system from my oldest sister's class. But it only happened after he refused to accept repeated attempts to enforce discipline. He disrupted class, the teachers would send him to the principle's office; he failed to go, he was assigned detention. He acted up there, and would get suspended. He missed so many days of school from the suspensions they could not legally send him to the next grade; he was held back a year. Eventually, he not only acted up in detention, but took a swing at the history teacher who was supervising it, and got a close-and-personal history lesson: the teacher had been a marine sargeant in 'Nam. He was frogmarched to the main office, where a phone call to the police led to his arrest. This, along with all the other incidents, gave grounds for a hearing before the school board for his removal from public schools. Motion granted, appeal in court heard and refused, and the parents had to make arrangements to either home-school or private-school him until he hit his majority.
That process might not seem bad to you, but when you're there, in the classroom, going through all these steps - it's an eternity. Also, when you have more than one such student, it's that much worse. I typically had 2-3 students on suspension at any given time. However, it was mostly a rotating door, with another 2-3 students actively trying to get put on suspension.
Contrariwise, some "discipline" problems are simply kids who are smarter (albeit more ignorant) than their teachers. My siblings and I often found ourselves in that boat. My oldest sister was prone to argue with teachers about the contents of the lessons. My other older sister helped organize a picket line and strike over a nigh-impossible homework assignment -- the six largest libraries within 30 miles only had 45% of the answers available; she was also prone to taking her notes with either hand, and as either regular or mirror-writing, and after her penmanship improved, sometimes took quizzes that way. I spent half of my 10th grade math class in the back of the room, quietly reading my way through the school library's 40 year collection of Analog SF magazines, and mostly ignoring the proceedings; the two kids on either side of me chatted (except during tests) via tapping their pens in morse. Et Cetera
The first year I taught, I had 4 classes of physics and one class of AP chemistry (i.e., advanced 11th & 12th graders). The "discipline" problems I had that year were of the type you describe, but to a lesser degree. I enjoyed teaching these kids, even when they did test my patience. The vast majority of them rose to meet my levels of expectations, and it was very rewarding. I did have more than one conference with an assistant principle who told me something along the lines of "these are A & B students who should be making A's and B's", to which I responded that, yes, they should be. Several of these students later thanked me for pushing them.
One funny story is that one of these kids actually stole my teacher's edition copy of the textbook. They were easy to catch, however, as this textbook was so bad that many of the "answers" in the back of the book were wrong!
The second (and last!) year I taught, however, I had only one class of physics, and four classes of physical science. In our district, physical science is for 9th graders who are not on the "college track" (although the district likes to pretend no such tracks exist). This school was not quite inner city, but did have a large number of apartment complexes, and so for the general/remedial classes it was not uncommon to have kids coming and going from your classroom throughout the year. (This is the same school I went to, btw.) Many of these kids (more than half, I would guess) had parents who didn't really care how well their kids did in class. Therefore, the kids didn't care either.
Although I don't listen to much music, I feel the same way about movies, books, etc. I rarely watch the same movie twice, so why should I own a bunch of DVDs. I rarely read the same book twice (unless it's a reference book), so why should I own a bunch of books. For me the solution is my local library, but that might not work for you.
If you and your colleagues were not loafing on the picket line, then I really wasn't talking about you, was I?
The way you wrote it sure sounded like you were lumping public school teachers together in one big lump. I'm fairly certain that the teachers you're talking about are the exception and not the rule. You'll also find teachers like that in private schools (again, as the exception, not the rule).
I've seen plenty of this problem at nearby public schools: including strikes where the bad-guy teachers crowed about the "victory" of getting their pay to increase deeper into the upper crust (from $49,000 to $51,000)....to be paid for through money that they obtained by forcing the schools to cut educational programs, bussing, supplies, etc.
First of all, if you think $51,000 is excessive for someone with a Master's degree and 20 years of experience (I believe that's about where you have to be on the chart to make that kind of money teaching), then I think you're undervaluing teachers. However, most teachers that I know would gladly see money well spent on making class sizes smaller, etc., and almost all teachers I know end up buying supplies for their classes out of their own salary. Doesn't sound like something you'd do if you're out to get rich.
Also, I was part of the union, although it was optional. They provided excellent coverage for legal costs if that became an issue, and as a male teacher I couldn't afford to take chances. Now, although it pains me to give you any ammunition, I will admit that, just as there were problems in getting rid of difficult students, there were also problems in getting rid of difficult teachers (although I was not actually aware of any such teachers). During orientation we were instructed on how our pay would get frozen (i.e., no more raises), if we failed our observation tests (when an administrator comes into your class to watch you teach) three years in a row. Basically, the observation tests worked like this: an administrator comes into your classroom and has a checklist of things you should be doing (teaching style, etc.). It's a good checklist; I've got no problem with it. Normally, you get 3 observations per year, as long as you pass all 3. However, if you fail an observation, they'll tell you what you did wrong (actually, they tell you what you did wrong regardless - no one's ever perfect), and give you another chance. So, it ends up that you have to pass 3 out of 5 possible observations in a given year. If not, you're on some kind of probation, but you still get a raise. Again, after 3 years of failing at least 3 out of 5 possible observations, your pay is frozen. That's ridiculous; you should be fired at that point. However, AFAIK, this is only a problem in theory, as I was not aware of anyone failing more than one observation in a year.
Before teaching full-time, I was a substitute teacher for two years. I spent several weeks as a substitute teacher at an alternative school (for 16+ year-olds) where this was exactly the policy in place. Although most of these students were there as a last resort (i.e., they had gotten in much trouble before), at this school they were primarily well behaved. So, what I'm saying is that your proposal is not without merit.
As for the Twinkies or Ho-Hos, in your dreams, the government and the food industry lobbiests counts french-fries and tomato catsup as two vegetables, in my book french-fries aren't a vegetable but a strachy-filler.
It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to. I then realized that my previous statement could be taken as a testimonial to the wisdom of the government. I apologize profusely if anyone thought that I would really imply such a thing. I merely meant that just because the government makes bad decisions it doesn't mean that people aren't capable of making worse decisions. I really have no idea what the solution is for feeding the poor. I just know that vouchers are no magic bullet. By "magic bullet" I mean just that. Vouchers *might* improve the system (although I doubt it), but they definitely won't *fix* the system.
So, since it's a topic I do care about, what do I think will make the biggest difference? Smaller class sizes. (Although private schools do tend to have signficantly smaller class sizes, arguing that vouchers would lead to smaller class sizes basically means that you have to believe in the ability to create money out of thin air.)
Part of the reason public schools do better is that they tend to get a better grade of teacher: those who are out to teach instead of to get rich.
You, sir, are delusional. I taught in public schools for 2 years, and here's a news flash - I wasn't getting rich. After I quit that job (because I couldn't take the discipline problems any more), I landed a job as a computer programmer earning more than twice what I made teaching at a public school, and with a lot less stress.
As for public schools expelling "problem" students, there is a lot of red tape that has to be cut through first. Again, I've been there and seen it first hand.
The work ethic encouraged in the public school system is shown by the lazy thug "teacher" loafing on a picket line to try to get more money instead of making positive effort in the classroom. Private schools have much less tolerance for these loafing thugs and will clear out the deadwood if this happened.
You are a disgrace. You are clearly demonstrating that you know nothing about the system you're complaining about. Do you want to guess how many times in my 2 years at a public school I was on a picket line? Zero. Do you want to guess how many times the school I taught at, in its 80+ year history has ever had a picket line? Zero. Furthermore, although there has been an occasional news story about such things happening in public schools, there have been no strikes at the public schools that I, any of my friends, my parents, or their parents have taught at and/or attended.
What I really don't understand is why you hate public school teachers so much. You are a truly noxious person with respect to this topic.
Everyone knew that Osama was connected to 9/11, so when Bush connected Osama to Saddam, he was able to just let the public believe what he wanted them to believe. Do I need to find the statements where Bush made those connections, or do you remember them yourself?
Furthermore, it was fairly strongly implied in his March 18th, 2003 letter to Congress:
acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Any guesses which country he was referring to? I'll give you a hint, the letter started with: "Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"
As for Rush Limbaugh, it was actually a little less subtle. Funny, until you challenged me, I has assumed it was only implied and not out-right stated! Granted, this is by another author, but it's on a web-site apparently run by loyal fans. Ironically, a few months later he claimed that nobody ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
If I'm allowed to bring the Veep into it, there's also this:
In making the false claim, Limbaugh overlooked Vice President Dick Cheney's suggestions of a connection between Iraq and 9-11. On the December 9, 2001, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, moderator Tim Russert asked Cheney if he "still believe[s] there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?" The vice president responded falsely that it was "pretty well confirmed" that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta shortly before the attacks. On the September 14, 2003, edition of Meet the Press, Cheney repeated his claim that Iraq and 9-11 are linked, saying: "If we're successful in Iraq... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
So, we have a letter from Bush to Congress directly stating that Iraq is connected to 9/11. Cheney saying the same thing. Rush supporters claiming the same, but Rush denying that anyone's made that claim. Well, to Rush's credit, at least it appears that he never made that claim.
No, I just really thought you were joking about how great it is to have such a wide selection of inferior food products available to those using food stamps. If I was trying to come up with the worst possible example in favor of vouchers, that might be the example I came up with. I'm sorry, but I sincerely thought you were joking.
For the record, I do think people should be able to buy the food they want with their own money. Same thing goes for education. However, you rarely appreciate things as much if you don't have to pay for it yourself. That's one more reason why private schools tend to do better. Are you going to shell out $20,000/year (for example) so your kid can do poorly in school? I used to work in an industry where we "gave" away a $500 product for $20. The conventional wisdom was that, if we gave it away for free, the consumers would not use it, and would not come back for more.
Private schools have to actually do a good job or they don't stay open.
Exactly! And how do they do a good job? By paying their teachers more? No. Smaller class sizes? That definitely helps. Partly, however, it's because they can "cut off poor, misbehaving, lazy, underperforming students". Emphasis primarily on misbehaving, as I understand it. Do you really believe this doesn't happen? As someone who used to teach in a public school, I can tell you how much easier my job would have been if I could have gotten rid of 5 misbehaving kids from each of my classes with 30+ students in them.
Either megaditto or I am misreading you. I was assuming that you were being sarcastic with your "You bet!" by pointing out the horrible choices the poor tend to make with their food stamps, whereas if they went to special government food stores, presumably there'd be no Twinkies or Ho-Hos there. Please tell me that megaditto misunderstood you and not me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it depends on how thick one's skin was. However, you'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to be offended by what you said, IMO.
I'm not sure if you know this, but you're actually supporting the GP's point, and not arguing against it. It wouldn't be the end of archaeology even if 99% of the world's population contributed to Wikipedia, because archaeologists would also care about the other 1%.
I can accept that explanation, and I apologize for what could be considered an insulting comment.
I guess the important question is: why is it important for you to stay on that message?
I'm guessing that you're supposing that "macacca" as monkey could refer to "political monkey" and have no racial connotation. Not a bad explanation - too bad that Allen didn't think of it. He said that he had no idea was "macacca" even meant and it was a made up word to sound like "mohawk" since the Siddarth's haircut looked kind of like a mohawk (if you squint your eyes, shake your head really fast, and put your fingers in front of your face). It also happens to be a derogatory word that people from his mother's background use. So, I see three options here: (1) he meant it as political monkey but was too embarrased to admit it (not very likely), (2) he was trying to say "mohawka" and it came out "macacca" (yeah, right), or (3) he meant it in the way he's heard other people from his mother's culture use it and was too embarrassed to admit it. I think it's clear which one I think is most likely.
Seems like someone's been drinking from the fountain of Fox News a little toooo deeply. I'm not saying it's not possible for the Dems to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - it's their specialty - just that you're using the catch phrases that suggest you're not doing too much of your own thinking.
You do realize that we have you to thank for George Allen, don't you? He was born in Whittier, California. (This is not meant to be any kind of "carpet bagging" slur, as Webb was born in Missouri, and as for me, well, I was born in (West) Germany - as an army brat.)
He also used to have a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office (note: Allen was born in California and did not demonstrate any fealty to the Confederate "culture" prior to moving to Virginia), and two flags - the American flag (quite appropriate) and the Confederate battle flag (see previous note). Finally, he named his son "Forrest" as well. One could argue that his son Forrest could be named after anyone, but the fact that Allen himself had a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office definitely gives a strong clue as to who his son was named for.
However, before you can hang up, you first have to halt whatever you're doing (perhaps destroying a productive train of thought), go over to your phone, and answer it.
That said, I agree with you that I personally wouldn't sue anyone over this. However, kudos to those who do because it might mean that I have to endure this hassle less often. And, yes, I'm on the "do not call" list.
So, you're complaining that suing about phone calls (which waste your time) is ... a waste of time. Is wasting time "bad", or not? More to the point, why is it bad in one case and not the other? Personally, I wouldn't be willing to waste my time suing over phone calls that waste my time, but if someone else chooses to (and in the process hopefully saves me time), more power to them. Of course, whether or not it's a waste of time is a matter of opinion, but I think the person whose time it is should be allowed to make that call (in general).
If your only complaint is that it's not worth your time, that's fine. However, it seemed that you thought it wasn't worth anyone's time, and that's a decision that can only be made by the individual.
But naming a codec after the former Soviet Union does not exactly inspire confidence.
My favorite trick was to hook up a set of pulleys that allowed one of the good kids (who got picked on) to easily win a tug-of-war with one of the football kids. Even though I had already taught this stuff, the "football kid" decided that the "good kid" must have won because I gave him the end with the better hold on it. So, I took off the string, reversed it, and let the good kid win the tug-of-war again (i.e., making sure he still had the bigger pulley). I'd like to think most of the kids in the class understood what was going on, even though this particular football player never figured it out (even after I explained it again).
Note: this is not meant to disparage those who play football. I have a friend here at UVA working on his Ph.D. in physics who played college football.
(A) The Brits have spelled it "spelt" for a long time, whereas we Americans have spelt it "spelled" for just as long. (B) See this site. Evidently, it's Greek and Latin.
If I start with 20 meters = 69 pixels, then 1 km = 1450 pixels, or 1 km^2 = 2.1 Mpx. Ignoring the oceans (since they no doubt have far worse resolution), the Earth has a land area of > 148 million km^2. That comes out to about 148 M * 2.1 M px = 310 Tpx. If the ocean were at a similar resolution, it'd be about 1 petapixel.
That process might not seem bad to you, but when you're there, in the classroom, going through all these steps - it's an eternity. Also, when you have more than one such student, it's that much worse. I typically had 2-3 students on suspension at any given time. However, it was mostly a rotating door, with another 2-3 students actively trying to get put on suspension.
The first year I taught, I had 4 classes of physics and one class of AP chemistry (i.e., advanced 11th & 12th graders). The "discipline" problems I had that year were of the type you describe, but to a lesser degree. I enjoyed teaching these kids, even when they did test my patience. The vast majority of them rose to meet my levels of expectations, and it was very rewarding. I did have more than one conference with an assistant principle who told me something along the lines of "these are A & B students who should be making A's and B's", to which I responded that, yes, they should be. Several of these students later thanked me for pushing them.
One funny story is that one of these kids actually stole my teacher's edition copy of the textbook. They were easy to catch, however, as this textbook was so bad that many of the "answers" in the back of the book were wrong!
The second (and last!) year I taught, however, I had only one class of physics, and four classes of physical science. In our district, physical science is for 9th graders who are not on the "college track" (although the district likes to pretend no such tracks exist). This school was not quite inner city, but did have a large number of apartment complexes, and so for the general/remedial classes it was not uncommon to have kids coming and going from your classroom throughout the year. (This is the same school I went to, btw.) Many of these kids (more than half, I would guess) had parents who didn't really care how well their kids did in class. Therefore, the kids didn't care either.
I'm incredibly jealous of those who were lucky enough to go to such a school, based off what I've heard from some of its alums.
Although I don't listen to much music, I feel the same way about movies, books, etc. I rarely watch the same movie twice, so why should I own a bunch of DVDs. I rarely read the same book twice (unless it's a reference book), so why should I own a bunch of books. For me the solution is my local library, but that might not work for you.
- Henry David ThoreauThe way you wrote it sure sounded like you were lumping public school teachers together in one big lump. I'm fairly certain that the teachers you're talking about are the exception and not the rule. You'll also find teachers like that in private schools (again, as the exception, not the rule).
First of all, if you think $51,000 is excessive for someone with a Master's degree and 20 years of experience (I believe that's about where you have to be on the chart to make that kind of money teaching), then I think you're undervaluing teachers. However, most teachers that I know would gladly see money well spent on making class sizes smaller, etc., and almost all teachers I know end up buying supplies for their classes out of their own salary . Doesn't sound like something you'd do if you're out to get rich.
Also, I was part of the union, although it was optional. They provided excellent coverage for legal costs if that became an issue, and as a male teacher I couldn't afford to take chances. Now, although it pains me to give you any ammunition, I will admit that, just as there were problems in getting rid of difficult students, there were also problems in getting rid of difficult teachers (although I was not actually aware of any such teachers). During orientation we were instructed on how our pay would get frozen (i.e., no more raises), if we failed our observation tests (when an administrator comes into your class to watch you teach) three years in a row. Basically, the observation tests worked like this: an administrator comes into your classroom and has a checklist of things you should be doing (teaching style, etc.). It's a good checklist; I've got no problem with it. Normally, you get 3 observations per year, as long as you pass all 3. However, if you fail an observation, they'll tell you what you did wrong (actually, they tell you what you did wrong regardless - no one's ever perfect), and give you another chance. So, it ends up that you have to pass 3 out of 5 possible observations in a given year. If not, you're on some kind of probation, but you still get a raise. Again, after 3 years of failing at least 3 out of 5 possible observations, your pay is frozen. That's ridiculous; you should be fired at that point. However, AFAIK, this is only a problem in theory, as I was not aware of anyone failing more than one observation in a year.
Before teaching full-time, I was a substitute teacher for two years. I spent several weeks as a substitute teacher at an alternative school (for 16+ year-olds) where this was exactly the policy in place. Although most of these students were there as a last resort (i.e., they had gotten in much trouble before), at this school they were primarily well behaved. So, what I'm saying is that your proposal is not without merit.
It took me a while to figure out what you were referring to. I then realized that my previous statement could be taken as a testimonial to the wisdom of the government. I apologize profusely if anyone thought that I would really imply such a thing. I merely meant that just because the government makes bad decisions it doesn't mean that people aren't capable of making worse decisions. I really have no idea what the solution is for feeding the poor. I just know that vouchers are no magic bullet. By "magic bullet" I mean just that. Vouchers *might* improve the system (although I doubt it), but they definitely won't *fix* the system.
So, since it's a topic I do care about, what do I think will make the biggest difference? Smaller class sizes. (Although private schools do tend to have signficantly smaller class sizes, arguing that vouchers would lead to smaller class sizes basically means that you have to believe in the ability to create money out of thin air.)
You, sir, are delusional. I taught in public schools for 2 years, and here's a news flash - I wasn't getting rich. After I quit that job (because I couldn't take the discipline problems any more), I landed a job as a computer programmer earning more than twice what I made teaching at a public school, and with a lot less stress.
As for public schools expelling "problem" students, there is a lot of red tape that has to be cut through first. Again, I've been there and seen it first hand.
You are a disgrace. You are clearly demonstrating that you know nothing about the system you're complaining about. Do you want to guess how many times in my 2 years at a public school I was on a picket line? Zero. Do you want to guess how many times the school I taught at, in its 80+ year history has ever had a picket line? Zero. Furthermore, although there has been an occasional news story about such things happening in public schools, there have been no strikes at the public schools that I, any of my friends, my parents, or their parents have taught at and/or attended.
What I really don't understand is why you hate public school teachers so much. You are a truly noxious person with respect to this topic.
Everyone knew that Osama was connected to 9/11, so when Bush connected Osama to Saddam, he was able to just let the public believe what he wanted them to believe. Do I need to find the statements where Bush made those connections, or do you remember them yourself?
Furthermore, it was fairly strongly implied in his March 18th, 2003 letter to Congress:
Any guesses which country he was referring to? I'll give you a hint, the letter started with: "Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"As for Rush Limbaugh, it was actually a little less subtle. Funny, until you challenged me, I has assumed it was only implied and not out-right stated! Granted, this is by another author, but it's on a web-site apparently run by loyal fans. Ironically, a few months later he claimed that nobody ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
If I'm allowed to bring the Veep into it, there's also this:
So, we have a letter from Bush to Congress directly stating that Iraq is connected to 9/11. Cheney saying the same thing. Rush supporters claiming the same, but Rush denying that anyone's made that claim. Well, to Rush's credit, at least it appears that he never made that claim.
No, I just really thought you were joking about how great it is to have such a wide selection of inferior food products available to those using food stamps. If I was trying to come up with the worst possible example in favor of vouchers, that might be the example I came up with. I'm sorry, but I sincerely thought you were joking.
For the record, I do think people should be able to buy the food they want with their own money. Same thing goes for education. However, you rarely appreciate things as much if you don't have to pay for it yourself. That's one more reason why private schools tend to do better. Are you going to shell out $20,000/year (for example) so your kid can do poorly in school? I used to work in an industry where we "gave" away a $500 product for $20. The conventional wisdom was that, if we gave it away for free, the consumers would not use it, and would not come back for more.
They did use CNN to get their information on Katrina...
Either megaditto or I am misreading you. I was assuming that you were being sarcastic with your "You bet!" by pointing out the horrible choices the poor tend to make with their food stamps, whereas if they went to special government food stores, presumably there'd be no Twinkies or Ho-Hos there. Please tell me that megaditto misunderstood you and not me.