text:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to order all U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said, closing the door on a war that has led to the deaths of at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military.
The pullout recommended by Obama's security advisers would free up troops and resources for the war in Afghanistan, where Obama has said the threat to national security is acute. The Iraq withdrawal would be completed 18 months from now….
Obama built enormous grass-roots support for his White House bid by promising a quick end to the unpopular Iraq war. His 16-month withdrawal plan, based on removing roughly one brigade a month, had been predicated on commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left behind or Iraq's fragile security….
The emerging plan now leaves Obama two months off his campaign pledge, and with between 30,000 and 50,000 troops still in Iraq to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests. The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.
Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war, according to a report last year from the Congressional Research Service."
This pullout, while inevitable, will come under circumstances far better than I had believed possible. At the very least, we have given the Iraqis a semi-functioning country and the chance to control their own future. As I've said in the past, I'll be very surprised if Iraq hasn't reverted to some kind of dictatorship five years from now, but I've been wrong before and hope to be wrong again.
February 25th, 2009
1:19 pm
I don't understand why Republicans get such a thrill out of wars. There's no place for it on the Monopoly board or the Game of Life board. Where do they come up with these crazy notions that anyone, other than themselves, want to fight wars all the time. It's almost as though they profit from wars or something at the taxpayer's expense. Hmmm.
February 25th, 2009
1:23 pm
The war was a mistake, period.
We had no reason to go in there, Bush lied to win popular support, the occupation was a disaster, and he had no exit plan.
Bush's only plan for Iraq after the illogical invasion was to run out the clock and let his successor solve the problems he created. Then again, he has done this on the economy, the environment, the deficit, our infrastructure, and any other matter that required some long-range vision of the nation's future.
In short, Bush had no business being president.
February 25th, 2009
1:26 pm
Iran won and will start up their first nuclear plant.
Saddam bluffed and lost and with Iran's help Iraq will be like Iran.
These two countries united with all that oil are in good shape.
February 25th, 2009
1:28 pm
If he was going to have to fudge 3 months I would have preferred 13 to 16….but I trust President Obama's judgement.
February 25th, 2009
1:41 pm
There is lots and lots and lots of money to be made waging war. Cheney was an ex-defense contractor so we were going to have a war one way or the other.
One bad side of Clinton's legacy is that he downsized the military, outsourcing some basic military needs to private contractors. If those tasks were still in the US military's hands, there wouldn't be as much money to be made by private firms. Remember all those jobs in sanitation, food supply, etc. All that was outsourced to private contractors.
The no-bid contracts? Cheney and Rumsfeld greasing palms.
Like Cheney being an ex-defense contractor, Bush was an ex-oilman from an oil family. You could read the writing on the wall – high gas prices were inevitable. Gas prices were around $1.40 when he took office, peaked massively during his last summer in office and fell immediately after the election. If you think that is coincidence, ok, I have no proof. But……Remember those secret energy meetings Cheney and the energy suppliers had shortly after they took office? I wonder if gasoline was discussed in those meetings? I'm just saying….money is a very powerful motivator.
I'm just saying….
February 25th, 2009
1:43 pm
At the risk of being a Maddow-bot, I really don't like the timing of this announcement, which seems news-dumpish and designed to attract as little attention and scrutiny as possible. And if that's the actual intent it's doomed to fail.
right? except…looking at the google news home page, it's barely visible (under "other news stories" on mine, anyway, wayyy at the bottom. Which says something about our gnat-like attention spans, I guess. But still.
February 25th, 2009
1:44 pm
I don't give a rat's rump if it does become dictatorship, invading Iraq was stupid, stupid, stupid. If they were going to invade it was stupid not to seal the borders before sprinting to Baghdad, where Saddam wasn't anyway. If they were going to invade, it was stupid not to take the time to collect every enemy weapon along the way and destroy it. The failure to do these things was stupid and led to the Administration asking later, "Geez, where did all these AK-47s and RPGs come from?" Bush's folly is criminal.
February 25th, 2009
1:46 pm
FINALLY. It's not like there's anyone left who can still claim, with a straight face, that invading Iraq was necessary. Let's put this blunder behind us and focus on real problems, not imaginary ones.
February 25th, 2009
1:48 pm
Speaking of coincidence, isn't it strange that between 1999 when Phil Gramm and Repubs with the help of Clinton dismantled the Glass-Steagall Act and the summer of 2008 when it became readily apparent McCain didn't stand a chance to win, all the problems that caused the current economic situation were being overlooked, ignored, etc?
When it became apparant McCain wasn't going to win, it looks kinda like they decided to go ahead and pull back the curtain to reveal the problem since the buck was about to be passed on to another party to solve the problem.
I'm just saying….maybe all this is coincidence.
February 25th, 2009
1:48 pm
Taxpayer –
On what do you base your assertion that "Republicans get a thrill out of war"?
The Democrats were just as vociferous in their support of the Afghan War and every war fought by the US in the 20th century, from WW1 to the Balkan War started with a Democratic administration.
getalife -
The Iran-supported parties were routed in the last election. The notion that Iraq will be a vassal state to Iran disregards hundreds of years of history.
February 25th, 2009
1:56 pm
I would like to have seen it divided up.
There is a reason the country could only be controlled by a crazed, trigger-happy guy like Saddam – those people hate each other to no end. He was able to keep order by pointing guns around.
If we leave, I think it will devlove even more until another strongman comes along who can get the country under his control…and then we will be back in the same position we were in with Saddam.
But at least we knew how to handle Saddam, the next guy might be quite different.
February 25th, 2009
1:57 pm
Ho hum-
The U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") is a status of forces agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government in late 2008 between Iraq and the United States. It establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations which could delay withdrawal and a referendum scheduled for mid-2009 in Iraq which may require U.S. forces to completely leave by the middle of 2010.
Wow, Jay giving Oblahmi credit for something he didn't do.
Go figure.
February 25th, 2009
2:00 pm
Mike Luckovich drew a cartoon a while back that had Ahmadinejad carrying off Iraq on a silver platter implying that he did so with our help (by invading Iraq). I loved that cartoon because it speaks to the core of the problem.
By weakening Iraq, we've basically handed them over to Iran. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, and we will be forced to deal with that.
In the meantime, we gear up to send more troops into Afghanistan which I don't think is such a good idea as things are now – same mistake of no real purpose or goals. But hopefully Obama won't do that until we move out of Iraq, in the meantime, we can come up with a better game plan or what it is we want to accomplish.
AND, Obama has said numerous times that many of the programs he wants to implement can be paid for with money saved by not spending it in Iraq. Well, if he marches us into Afghanistan, then blammo, there go the savings.
And the problem after we leave, I see Iran basically annexing Iraq – which, again, is problematic for all.
Now, with that said, I do trust Obama not to blunder things as bad as Bush & Co. did, but my point is, why go into Afghanistan at all? Oh yes, there is that one particular guy we want so bad and his merry band of outlaws, but I say it does no good to keep stirring up the beehive and getting our asses stung when these people seem hell bent on blowing each other up. I say let 'em – less work for us – it worked for Iran.
But I will say, as I have always contended, it serves no one's interest to attack a country with a nuclear bomb, unless of course, they wish to themselves, very soon afterward face the fury of the entire globe and then themselves be wiped off. It doesn't benefit no one, and even crazy fundamentalist jihadist know this.
February 25th, 2009
2:02 pm
My sentiments exactly – Saddam may have been a horrible, brutal dictator, but he knew how to keep order – and it's insane logic to think there isn't someone else – just as horrible and brutal and dictatorly (is that a word?) just waiting until we leave. And then – we've wasted all this time, money and lives for what?
February 25th, 2009
2:05 pm
- just as horrible and brutal and dictatorly (is that a word?)
"Dic-ish", I think, is the one you want.
February 25th, 2009
2:09 pm
Yeah, I think that's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks!!
February 25th, 2009
2:10 pm
To amend the question since you have dodged it twice now.
Since you blame republicans for any and all instances that happen in republican controlled districts, areas, and states. Would you mind answering these questions.
Do you also place the violent crime rates of Chicago, L.A., New York, Detroit, and Washington D.C. on the democrats?
If you do not place blame with democrats for their districts, then who would you place the blame with? Also you have set a precedent that it cannot be individuals acting poorly it must be in conjuncture with a political party. Those are rules you chose to set by the tone and temperament of your postings.
Do you think more people were victims in these cities combined or in all of the peanut scandal you have been fondling yourself over?
These are easy OPINION QUESTIONS so sorry i cannot answer them for you, just very curious as to your opinion. Actually I am more curious to see how many different ways a person can dodge a question without just having to say I don't want to answer that it will make things i have said in the past look stupid, and for whatever reason i value my false credibility on a blog.
February 25th, 2009
2:15 pm
I think people must get a cheap thrill out of war when they have to come up with nonsense in order to justify them — everything from yellow cake with no frosting to preemptive strikes against rusted out shells of formerly mobile mass-producers of anything of non-bacteriological significance. But, I just offer up these little gems to tease. Truth be known, there are many reasons Republicans of a certain persuasion salivate at the mere prospect of war. The real-life games for one. The thrill of victory and the agony of de feet — marching through that hot sand will test the best that Dr. Shoals has to offer. And, how else is one to find out that those new-fangled turbines get all choked up in a desert sand storm without puttin' to the test. Those simulators only go so far, you know. Then, as I mentioned before, Bush Jr. just wanted to keep his pappy's likeness from gettin' the foot any more and Rumsfeld was just interested in settling an old score with the man that he shook hands with. I mean, is there no honor amongst thieves anymore. Of course there's always money involved. Did anyone hear about that covert ops dude, named Dusty, that went and got all caught up in a scandal involving money and paying off some other good old boy that was on the take. I think he also had something to do with some guy named Cunningham. Pizza anyone.
February 25th, 2009
2:24 pm
Taxpayer -
That is your rationale for your statement that "Republicans get a thrill out of war"? Why does that list of boilerplate rhetoric not apply to Hillary and John Edward's support for the war? Did they do so for "Bush Jr.'s pappy"?
How does your silly "Dr Scholl's" argument address the fact that Democratic administrations took America into every single war that it fought in the 20th century?
Could it be that this is just one more complex issue that you boil down to "Republicans bad. Democrats good"?
February 25th, 2009
2:28 pm
Oh lookie,
tcoach wants me to play. Well, let's keep this simplistic, shall we. Let's start with your grand-slam opening trash talk:
Since you blame republicans for any and all instances that happen in republican controlled districts, areas, and states. Would you mind answering these questions.
Since I do nothing of the sort, I do mind and I will not even read any farther into your post. Now, if you want me to play along with your simplistic scenarios, then I must insist that you simply stick to factual statements, for starters. Also, I do also reserve the right to impose other constraints assuming you make it far enough for me to need to.
February 25th, 2009
2:29 pm
Jay, it was big of you to write, "At the very least, we have given the Iraqis a semi-functioning country and the chance to control their own future. As I've said in the past, I'll be very surprised if Iraq hasn't reverted to some kind of dictatorship five years from now, but I've been wrong before and hope to be wrong again."
Nonetheless, you should have gone farther to say.
As things now stand, Iraq has been established as a functioning democracy in the middle east and there is hope in some quarters that it will become a model for the barbaric middle east nations.
Also, we leave the Iraqi people free of the terrorism and rape rooms of the dictator Saddam Hussein.
Finally, were it left to President Obama, we would have left Iraq in defeat leaving the nation in chaos and creating a the largest killing field ever know to mankind, but President Bush's unparalelled strength of character and courage led this nation to victory and forged a safer world by eviscerating Iraq's previous terrorist regime.
Jay, you can still write those things, go ahead, you'll feel better.
February 25th, 2009
2:40 pm
I live in the present and the present that I live in has war-mongering Republicans and Democrats. Of course, I am generalizing and as anyone that thinks a little should be able to figure out without straining a muscle, there are always exceptions but that does not invalidate the generalizations. The fact is that neocons such as Cheney, Bush, Perle, Rove, etc., and so forth and so on love the notion of preemption and they just love the thought of having their little axes of evil and shocking and awing and it's all rather well documented even all the way back to that Republican war-monger, Reagan, that Rumsfeld worked for and even before that. It was Reagan that sent Rumsfeld over there to get in bed with Saddam so they could get him to pick fights with Iran and anyone else they needed them to and of course there's the close ties that they had with bin Laden back in the day too but that's another story.
February 25th, 2009
2:44 pm
Jay? You support the pullout, but you hope you are wrong about Iraq becoming a dictatorship again. I cannot find any logic or any concern for the Iraqis in that position.
No matter at this point whether the war was right or wrong. We established a relatively effective and peacefully elected government. We must stay, my guess, 3 to 7 more years in order to allow and help that peaceful and peacfully elected government to mature.
Pulling out is the US, right now that is Democrats, willingly abandoning the people of Iraq at a critical point. A terribly wrong thing to do.
February 25th, 2009
2:45 pm
Don't you just love those "functioning" democracies, equipped with free fatherland security, courtesy of we the taxpayers. Why don't we just buy their oil and let them hire their own security forces from the proceeds.
February 25th, 2009
2:47 pm
Sometimes war is the necessary answer.., as in Saddam's case.
February 25th, 2009
2:47 pm
I was against the war as well.
However, instead of screeching about "Bush's war!" and "No blood for oil!" or "get us out now!" I realized that once we were in, we had to finish the job.
The previous administration did a horrible job orchestrating the beginning of the peace, and threw in too many PR gaffes to mention. This made Iraq an easy lightning rod and made it too easy to gloss over the real inhumanity of the Saddam regime (check out his treatment of Iraqi Olympic athletes, for example).
However, I found it fascinating that after the initial problems, the steady progress in Iraq went ignored. Instead, we kept hearing about the "atrocities" our soldiers were engaging in, the "quagmire" and how the war was "unwinnable."
Now? Obama should be thanking the Bush administration. He left a fairly stable Iraq in place, so the current administration can play the hero and pull us out.
Of course, this comes at the same time we are ramping up in Afghanistan. Let's hope that we're more successful than every other nation in history that's tried to calm that state.
February 25th, 2009
2:50 pm
Taxpayer -
Well, if Reagan was a "war-monger" and never engaged in a war, what does that make Bill Clinton the executive of the Balkan War? Please demonstrate some consistency.
February 25th, 2009
2:50 pm
No matter how Obama mishandles Afghanistan into Quagmire, Part Deux, the flummoxed GOP chickenhawks will convulse even further.
Do the pro-war neoliths support the commander-in-chief in this folly like the good little chest pounders they were for the past six years in supporting BushCos botched invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Or do they show their true Party-first, Party-last, Party-always colors by withholding support as they did when Clinton ended the genocide in Europe without losing a single American life?
No matter which way they go on this issue, and a host of others for that matter, they are essentially irrelevant in this day and age, except to their base here in the Moron Belt and other backwater locales like Oklahoma and Utah.
Duty calls, Later friends and fools…
February 25th, 2009
2:53 pm
AmVet –
I assume that when you are calling out "chickenhawks", you are including Obama, Bookman, Hillary and all of the other supporters of the Afghan War who never served.
February 25th, 2009
2:56 pm
@11:51″Tell that to the 666 people sickened so far by peanuts processed in that Republican stronghold facility."
So you did not say this?
Again at 11:51 "Just look at those poor dead people in that Imperial Sugar plant in that Republican stronghold and that Republican Saxby Chambliss and his attack on the one guy there that actually tried to save lives"
Exactly what do you mean by stronghold?
Both of these seem to be accusing the area "stronghold" and equating it to republicans.
See I told you that you would avoid questions.
Seriously it is only a question and answer can you be that gripped with fear?
Also I have on numerous occasions said things to others that you accused me of not doing anything about @12:30. Don't believe them ask, or even better go back and look in archives. (if anyone can still get to them)Just saw they were not going to change so quit banging my head on the wall. I think sometimes they have valid and worthy points other times, I think they are either trying to p**s you all off or they really do have some issues with things. Either way it causes others to never take anything they say seriously and tune them out. I am trying to figure out if this is you.
Sorry just because I disagree with you does not mean that I agree with them. You seem to be a very prejudice labeling individual. You do know that not all people fit into your molds you have cast for us all right? I only say this because you have lumped me in with them before. This happens some here by others usually when I ask them something they do not wan to to truthfully answer either. But go back and read and if you still think I am in the same boat of thinking as those you accuse me of then it shows you are nothing more than a troll, wishing the worst for our country and for our division.
So again when can I expect an actual answer?
You also show yourself to be a phony if the amount of deaths from the peanuts bother you but the murders don't.
See I'll even help you from time to time, the murder rates are higher. Since you were unable to google that information for me, or maybe you were and once again chose to only use the information that you like.
Dodge, duck,dive,dip, and Dodge. ESPN ocho baby.
February 25th, 2009
2:58 pm
AmVet -
Be sure to tell the families of David Gibbs and Kevin Reichert that the Yugoslav War was fought without losing a single American life.
As usual, your comments demonstrate ignorance of facts.
February 25th, 2009
2:59 pm
Nice. Very nice.
Kinda glad you were wrong on your first assumption. Hope you'll be wrong on the second. But I doubt it.
[[I don't understand why Republicans get such a thrill out of wars.]]
Roosevelt and Johnson were Republicans?
[[Bush lied to win popular support]]
Please, that was stale five minutes after VP Gore's chant.
[[Bush's only plan for Iraq after the illogical invasion was to run out the clock and let his successor solve the problems he created.]]
Did you make that up yourself? From Jay's excerpt, it's pretty obvious there's nothing left to solve. The remaining troops aren't doing anything new. Or solving anything old.
[[Bush had no business being president]]
Except for the small detail that he was elected. Twice.
[[ran won and will start up their first nuclear plant.
Saddam bluffed and lost and with Iran's help Iraq will be like Iran.]]
Hopefully G will think about "Bush lied" in the context of "Saddam bluffed and lost."
As far as Iran going nuclear, didn't I hear somewhere that Pres Obama and SecState Clinton have said we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon? I really, really kinda think I heard that somewhere…. but I could be wrong…
Mrs. Godzilla 1:28
That's fair. But I'll bet the staff on MoveOn are in a tizzy 'cause they're not all gone. I'll have to cruise on over and check sometime. See their take on it –
BDAtlanta 1:41
[[outsourcing some basic military needs to private contractors.]]
That's a common misperception. Law and policy on outsourcing refer only to those functions that are not inherently governmental. I'm reading your 'needs' as inherently governmental. Lots of people think of the Blackwater example – but they were not military units, primarily guards. Got way out of hand, though. May want to Google OMB Circular A-76 sometime.
As far as Pres Bush orchestrating the runup in oil prices given his oil background, that was a pretty slick accomplishment for a guy who's such a bungler, isn't it?
DB, Gwinnettian 1:43
I guess they couldn't bring themselves to headline "we won" or "mission accomplished"?
Management 1:57
Isn't that the Status of Forces Agreement Senate Dems were so upset over 'cause Bush hotdogged it through and the Senate didn't get to vote on it so it was another example of a failed Bush policy?
Bosch 2:00
[[By weakening Iraq, we've basically handed them over to Iran. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next couple years, and we will be forced to deal with that.]]
I keep tellin' ya', man, don't worry about it! Pres Obama's said repeatedly that he won't let that happen! He'll do anything, whatever it takes!
[[I do trust Obama not to blunder things as bad]]
That's funny! Realistic, but funny! "He can still screw things up, but it just won't be as bad." LOL!
Seriously, do you really think elements in this country would react with horror at the idea that, if we were hit with an Iranian-supplied nuke, that we would obliterate Iran? That they wouldn't call for 'proportionality' – you know, they only lit off a small nuke in NYC so we should only light off a small nuke in a non-capitol city.
Personally, the Genghis Khan part of me would want to turn the entire country into a sheet of glass.
Mike 2:58
That's the test of when we should unleash our military on another country? It's okay as long as our guys don't die?!!?
February 25th, 2009
3:00 pm
Actually, I think all that New World Order stuff started with Bush Senior and his neo-con buddies. He was CIA, you know. They're devilish little fellas with their preemptive ways.
February 25th, 2009
3:03 pm
Mike 2:58
Sorry about that last post. I read your comment completely incorrectly.
But the question still stands as a general one (though not to AmVet – we've hashed this over) – many people cite the US led, UN resisted, NATO drag along as a good thing 'cause of the paucity of casualties. That, in my opinion, is a dangerous way to evaluate the worthiness of intervention.
February 25th, 2009
3:06 pm
I just checked yesterday's "The '50 percent pay no tax' fraud, Part II" and have a bone to pick. Nothwithstanding, the erroneous and improper claims made against me, I did not enage in hate speach. It is hurtful to me that a clinical statement, such as that which I wrote, could be so heinously misrepresented by others. It would take a truly sick mind to categorize anything i wrote as offensive, let alone hate speach.
Incidentially, Jay, my research indicates that welfae benefits and food stamps are not taxable income and, as such, a personal wholly dependant on welfare-benefits and food stamps is not required to file a tax return. Which, to some extent, eviscerates your 38% number and proves up my theory.
February 25th, 2009
3:06 pm
So, tcoach, you want to jump into my exchange with Dusty and proclaim yourself as having some understanding of the context. Well, I don't believe you. Your next task is to pull up each post between Dusty and myself and explain to me what we were talking about. Then, we'll see where it goes from there. K.
February 25th, 2009
3:07 pm
Paul -
I agree. If casualty count was the metric than the Viet Nam war was a more worthy endeavor than WW2.
February 25th, 2009
3:14 pm
Roosevelt and Johnson were Republicans?
Who am I to say. Hey, if Perdue can be a Republican, anyone can. Even Phil Gramm started out as a Democrat and then changed to the Republican party once he figured out his true calling.
February 25th, 2009
3:19 pm
Taxpayer – In Jay's earlier blog, I posted in reference to the debt service (interest) on the $787 billion bailout driving the true cost well north of a trillion.
Your response was, "By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion."
You are so far off the mark it's laughable. The current yield on 30 year treasury bonds is 3.58%. Take $787 billion and pay 3.58% on it for 30 years and you come up with a total cost to the taxpayers of $2.3 TRILLION. Lucky for us that we're not using your outragous 10% rate, huh?
I've got to go back into a meeting but I'll check back later to see your response. I'm sure it will be another fact-filled gem.
February 25th, 2009
3:22 pm
I can stay at it.
It is there for all to see you my friend are guilty of lying about that, you did equate a district to a political party.
It is your honor and integrity in question. You asked I provided. See that is how it is done by rational adults. This would be your time for a rebuttal. But you know that you do not have one.
I have seen you operate on here, and anytime you can prove it wrong or somehow have a good fact to use you do. When there are none available you go and want others to do all of your research. I have seen you jump in on others dialog, while not providing a running log of the post. Yet now you want one.
I get it, you are old, angry with how YOUR life turned out and trying to find someone anything to affix the blame to. I am truly sorry you are so bitter. Do you not have friends and family to talk to about your anger? If you treat them as you do others though they most likely do not want to engage in conversation with you.
Sir I have given examples and you have even made me out to be a soothsayer, since I called exactly the ways you would respond.
I will keep at it though, day after day after day until I receive my answer. I truly have grown tired of you trying to bully others and act as if you are smarter than them. You are no better than anyone else here, there or anywhere. So why do you feel you are.
It is fine for you to make an assertion that something is fact without a source but complain when others do. You are truly hypocritical in almost every facet of your life that we see. So actually I guess in a strange way you are not hypocritical because you are so consistently hypocritical.
Just because you are older does not mean smarter that usually only last until like adulthood, then most have kinda caught up.
February 25th, 2009
3:23 pm
In all seriousness, I think we're going to see just a bit of military action out of this administration. They may dress it up as "humanitarian action" but it's still using American military forces to impose America's view of morality on the world. And, it's already begun. George Clooney missed the Oscars so he could tell Pres Obama about the Darfur disaster. Get ready – we're going in.
And if we find out Pres Obama's statements on Iran weren't (what was his phrase?) 'campaign rhetoric' then we can also get ready for (to use VP Biden's words) "an uptick" in American casualties.
February 25th, 2009
3:25 pm
And I keep telling you man, there ain't gonna be no nuclear attack. Now, I could be wrong, and Gods know I hope I am not (catch the 'Gods' ref.? ha, ha, only oh, I don't know your the stopwatch), but if these freaking jihadist idiots were gonna do something like that, we'd be toast already – North Korea's weirdo dictator is crazy as bat shit, yet smart enough to know his bat shit crazy self and country (who he doesn't even care about the populace) would be blown to bits right back. It ain't gonna happen. You watch way too much Battlestar Galactica (did you just spit coffee/water/Coke/drink of choice on your keyboard when you read that? I couldn't resist).
February 25th, 2009
3:26 pm
Observer -
LOL. Did Taxpayer really say, "By the way, $787 billion plus something as outrageous as a 10% annual interest rate would only be $866 billion."
That is hysterical. On this blog, it seems that the angrier you are the less knowledge of basic facts you posses.
$866 billion. LOL
February 25th, 2009
3:27 pm
So we're out of Iraq in 18 months, which we probaby would have been anyways regardless of whos in office.
But now chicken-hawk Oblaham is sending 17,000 troops to Afghanastan to die for oil…where's the left wing screeching over that tidbit?
I guess the AJC will just print more cute stories about Oblahma's favorite bubblegum or somesuch nonsense as usual.
February 25th, 2009
3:27 pm
Not sure who on this said (or why for that matter) that Republicans love war. What kind of crazy statement is that? I thought that Dec. 2011 was already established as to when we left Iraq? If that's right why is this something that Obama would get/take credit for?
February 25th, 2009
3:28 pm
"That's funny! Realistic, but funny! "He can still screw things up, but it just won't be as bad." LOL!"
Are you making fun of me? You better not be, doodoo head.
February 25th, 2009
3:29 pm
Observer, though I loathe it more than I loathe John Kerry, himself, I am, nonetheless called to defend.
For those educated in matters of finance, the concept that you use to arrive at 3.23 trillion is the sum of a stream of payments.
If you one desires to determine the "true cost" of such a stream of payments, one would calculate the "net present value."
Let me explain, in a manner in which even the most simple liberal could understand, by asking if were to pay you a dollar, would your rather get it now or 30 years from now. A stream of payments must be discounted over its term to reflect anticipated expected returns to convert it into a present value.
As to you, Taxpayer, you are wrong about everything else.
February 25th, 2009
3:34 pm
Wyld Byll @2:29,
You have posted a very fine piece…. right here in the middle of the white flagger, anti-war, cut'n'runners of our day.
Bush saw the danger to our country from Iraq. The CIA reported the dangers. Congress read the reports and knew the danger. British Intelligence saw the danger as did their Prime Minister. So Bush and ALL Congress except one did what was necessary for our protection.
If everything in reports was not accurate, what was in Iraq was most harmful as our military has proven. American hating terrorists swarmed to Iraq instead of heading to America. Iraq is now on its way to becoming a stable country in the MidEast (just as you said, Wyld Byll.) We still have to fight the terror loving Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Obama realizes that. It is almost more than his far left libs can bear.
White flaggers have tried everything against the Iraq conflict. They say Bush was doing it for more oil and money (He was already rich and we had other sources for oil). They blamed Cheney because they said he wanted to get rich (He was already rich being a smart business man.) They blamed Halliburton (one of the few companies large enough to handle world wide supplies). They blamed the Blackstone Security Company who was hired for non-military work. Blackstone employees treated as subversives by the press instead of security. Libs declared the Defense Department was not supplying our armed forces but complained about the cost of the war. They tried to use flag wrapped coffins from Iraq as propaganda. Nothing was too "low" for anti-war far left liberals to declare.
Now, what will these cut'n'run complainers say when Obama tells them again that more troops and supplies are needed in Afghanistan? Will they drag out their old book of complaints? How about a few protests? Will they burn Bush in effigy but not Obama?
Meanwhile Bookman does his little dance around dutiful dissent and other ways of getting around anti-Americanism. Someone said:"If you aren't with us, you are against us." Not so, say libs. They opine "If we are against you, we are all for you." I haven't figured that one out yet. That's why I don't run with their crowd.
February 25th, 2009
3:36 pm
Do you also place the violent crime rates of Chicago, L.A., New York, Detroit, and Washington D.C. on the democrats?
You should look up the word density, and then Google urban density and its effect on crime. That has nothing to do with political parties, it has to do with density. Man you guys are a few cards short of a deck.
BTW, I feel safer in an urban environment than I do paddling a canoe down a river through a red state. Plus, if something happens to me in an urban environment, it will probably be reported to the authorities. In red states with sparse populations and old white sheriffs, I bet most things never get reported officially.
February 25th, 2009
3:36 pm
My good man, have you taken leave of your senses? Do you wish to cast doubt upon all your current and future arguments by stating someone can watch too much BattleStar Galactica?"
I sure hope you're right. But you do see the position it puts America in when Candidate Obama, then President Obama, makes the statements he's made?
Credibility goes out the window. And frankly, in such cases in international relations, a bit of fear on our enemies part is a good thing. But if they think they have nothing to fear (the phrase from long ago was "America as a paper tiger") then there is little to inhibit another country's actions.
And when you're dealing with nukes and religious fanatics, you've got a dangerous mix.
February 25th, 2009
3:38 pm
In the twentieth century, every war has been led by a democrat in the white house with the exception of the Persian Gulf Conflict. WWI, Wilson, WWII, Roosevelt, Korea, Truman, Vietnam, Johnson.
People will say its the republicans in congress, but since 1931, the republicans have been inpower a total of 16 years, many times the democrats held a filibuster proof majority, especially during the vietnam war, at one point in the 70s, there was a 74-16 democrat majority.
February 25th, 2009
3:38 pm
Byll –
NPV aside, Taxpayer's assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.
February 25th, 2009
3:40 pm
" In red states with sparse populations and old white sheriffs, I bet most things never get reported officially.
Right because old white people are intrinsically immoral. Thanks for that insightful statement.
February 25th, 2009
3:40 pm
Yeah, Hussein was a bad man. But remember, it was the Reagan administration that funneled him weapons through a back door so he could stay in power in the 80's. Hussein was the GOP's boy for a long time. The guys fighting over there now should remember that. So should the wingnuts!
February 25th, 2009
3:42 pm
Right because old white people are intrinsically immoral.
Old white sheriffs are historically immoral. History backs that up. Even looking at the limited scope of the civil rights movement, that is clear.
I didn't say old white people. That is what you are trying to put in my mouth. DIdn't work. Need smarter wingnuts!
February 25th, 2009
3:43 pm
Ummmmm…i am probably mistaken, often am, but wasn't that the plan all along well before Obama became President?
February 25th, 2009
3:43 pm
gttim –
Hmmm. You ramble on with silly attacks on "old, white men" and you are the one calling people wingnuts? Please
February 25th, 2009
3:44 pm
You have to remember that Democrats know squat about money and finance. That's why all of them are broke and make poor decisions about money.
They refuse to learn, and instead choose to let momma government shelter them at a cost to those of us who are productive and know what we're doing.
If only are laws were based on Darwin's principals. We could weed out those of us who are holding us back as a nation and progress at a rate not seen since the industrial revolution.
Of course, Democrats hate true progress. Progress to them means setting a bottom level standard and forcing everyone on earth to remain at that level.
February 25th, 2009
3:44 pm
Taxpayer's assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.
1/3 of that 787 billion is tax cuts- the largest tax cut ever passed. How come you are trying to add interest to tax cuts? Seems disingenuous at best. Are you saying tax cuts cost us more than the actual cuts? So you would be against them, right?
February 25th, 2009
3:46 pm
I was just kidding. Of course no one can watch too much Battlestar Galactica – sorry, that's almost blasphemous talk – it's Ash Wednesday and when I'm repenting later, I'll ask for extra forgiveness – it's late in the afternoon, and I thought it would be fun to wake you up a bit.
Well, hell, of course, Candidate Obama is gonna say that – about Iran and nuclear weapons and we won't let them get them and we'll do anything, blah, blah, blah. That's to appease the war nutters. You know, the guys who scream "but Democrats are soft on national security!!!!! YYYYYAAAAAA!!!!!" You know the type.
"And when you're dealing with nukes and religious fanatics, you've got a dangerous mix"
So incredibly true. But it doesn't scare me – how they gonna get it over here? In one of their Air Force jets? Oh yeah, they don't have one.
And who are they anyway? Now I've confused myself.
Religious fanatics are more likely to blow themselves up with such a device – they ain't that smart – the smart ones know you cripple an enemy with wiping out their bank accounts – you know, like what's going on here.
February 25th, 2009
3:47 pm
You ramble on with silly attacks on "old, white men" …
Mike why do you feel the need to lie repeatedly. I attacked old, white sheriffs. Again, history is on my side. And wingnut fits. Are you wingnuts going to start throwing stones in your glass houses? You guys toss around more personal insults and names than anybody else I have ever seen.
February 25th, 2009
3:47 pm
gttim -
"Old white sheriffs are historically immoral. History backs that up."
What nonsense. Back up the statement that an "old white sheriffs" are "historically" immoral than say, Sidney Dorsey.
Get over your bigotry and recognize that an individual's morality has nothing to do with his age, race, political affiliation or residence.
February 25th, 2009
3:48 pm
Observer, it is truly sad that you have to make yourself look like such an udder cow over something so simple. We were talking at the time about annual spending and so, as with the deficit, one typically refers to annualized amounts. On top of that, I did not even attack your silly response in a serious manner but if you wish, let us talk about the whole story instead of your ridiculous little excerpt from time. Look back over the Bush years, for example, and tell me how much interest has been paid out on the nearly 3 trillion dollars in debt that he added to our national debt. Now, run along and do your homework, little fella.
February 25th, 2009
3:52 pm
I gave you your assignment, tcoach. Now run along like a good little boy and do it or else I will no longer reply to your childish accusations and name-calling again. That's a good boy.
February 25th, 2009
3:52 pm
gttim -
When did I "lie repeatedly"?
You are the one who said that "old, white sherrifs are historiclly immoral." What makes these folks different than other sherrifs who are more moral in your eyes? The fact that they are "old, white people".
As for the personal insults and names, the only one I throw around is bigot, which your own statements demonstrate you to be. Stop complaining about name calling in a paragraph in which you call people "wingnuts" twice. Also, read the posts above and tell me that conservatives are any more likely to name call than liberals.
Your hypocrisy is laughable.
February 25th, 2009
3:53 pm
Taxpayer -
I can't wait to tell my wife that the total payout of our mortgage is only the principal plus 6%. LOL
February 25th, 2009
3:54 pm
Taxpayer –
When are you going to run along and answer a single question that gets posed to you?
February 25th, 2009
3:56 pm
I've gotta duck out for a couple hours, but I knew you were kidding – you can never get too much BSG!!!
Y'know, early on in the Clinton Administration officials pretty much laughed at OBL's threats and statements because he was just a guy in the mideast with no air force or army – kinda like Stalin's dismissal of the Pope of "how many divisions does the Pope have?"
All sorts of scenarios exist – and I'm sure Pres Obama's been briefed on a few – but Israel and our ties to them are a likely possibility. As far as a homeland attack, more than one novel's been done – heck, I think one was a Vince Flynn novel – where the device sailed into Galveston Harbor, home of more oil and gas storage tanks than just about anywhere, on board a cargo ship. You know, the ones we inspect…
Thinking about the unthinkable. Sobering stuff.
later -
February 25th, 2009
3:56 pm
Mike, please forgive me. I have been hanging around Jay's blogs for a while; it goes without saying that Taxpayer is ignorant, uninformed, and, most of all wrong in the broader scope of things.
However, as best as i can figger, ol' pea brain arrived at the $866b by adding the corpus ($787b) plus one year's interest at 10%(78.7m.) Of course this is falacious as one can not reasonably expect the debt arising from the transaction to be repaid in one year. Nonetheless, Taxpayer is incorrigible and i did not feel it worth the effort.
On the other hand, I still hold out hope that Observer can become a productive participant, so I took the time to "Herman Cain" him.
Byll –
NPV aside, Taxpayer's assertion that the total cost of $787 billion at a 10% APR is $866 billion is sheer ignorance.
February 25th, 2009
3:57 pm
gttim -
"1/3 of that 787 billion is tax cuts- the largest tax cut ever passed. How come you are trying to add interest to tax cuts?"
Uh, I was pointing out the simplicity of the math that Taxpayer laid out. Take it up with him.
February 25th, 2009
3:58 pm
When did I "lie repeatedly"?
Every time you said I said something I didn't. You said I said "Old, white men," and "Old, white people." I didn't.
You are the one who said that "old, white sherrifs are historiclly immoral." What makes these folks different than other sherrifs who are more moral in your eyes? The fact that they are "old, white people".
If I say my dog is white, it does not mean all dogs are white. You either a liar, or are stupid. Or both. Study logic a little.
What nonsense. Back up the statement that an "old white sheriffs" are "historically" immoral than say, Sidney Dorsey.
Because one, or more, "old, black sheriff" was immoral does not mean that "old, white sheriffs" were not. Again, I suggest you study logic a little. You are claiming false equivalencies. You can look that word up.
"Old, white sheriffs" have a long history of immorality. You can Google that.
February 25th, 2009
3:58 pm
In all seriousness, I think we're going to see just a bit of military action out of this administration. They may dress it up as "humanitarian action" but it's still using American military forces to impose America's view of morality on the world. And, it's already begun. George Clooney missed the Oscars so he could tell Pres Obama about the Darfur disaster. Get ready – we're going in.
And if we find out Pres Obama's statements on Iran weren't (what was his phrase?) 'campaign rhetoric' then we can also get ready for (to use VP Biden's words) "an uptick" in American casualties.
I suppose time will tell. As I have said before, our going into Afghanistan was justified since the Taliban were clearly in bed with those that attacked us. I cannot say the same for Iraq unless one views it as a gigantic mistake on the part of the US back in Reagan's day. Then, one could look at Saddam's reign of terror as being at least partially our fault and that we needed to undo that mess and then get out and let things develop as they should — without our nose in it. Then, there is Obama goodwill effort with the Gaze rebuilding and the message that sends and Iran is now wanting to start up serious talks with us. We will see how things go.
February 25th, 2009
4:00 pm
Why do I have the feeling that "taxpayer" is more like "welfare recepient".
Democrats hardly pay any taxes at all…if anything they get back more than what they ever pay into "the system". The free lunch express.
I could never sleep at night knowing that I was letting the government steal from others,at gunpoint, on my behalf so that I could just take easy street and work 8 hours per day at a lame job that a 12 year old could do.
February 25th, 2009
4:01 pm
Uh, I was pointing out the simplicity of the math that Taxpayer laid out. Take it up with him.
You didn't answer the question. Plus, my point supports Taxpayers claim that the trillion dollar thing you wingnuts keep bringing up is wrong, and Taxpayer is right. If Taxpayers math was so simplistic, why didn't you point out the other wrong parts. Oh, because they did not assert you wingnuts lie?
February 25th, 2009
4:03 pm
gttim, the Bookman RightWingnutterbutters think slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow were all moral.
So naturally they think those ol' white sheriffs were just nice good ol' boys.
February 25th, 2009
4:04 pm
Hey, what do you kids expect. I'm one lone retiree trying to teach a whole class that all has its hands up at the same time. It's really cool — all the interest — but my little ole phalanges can only move so fast and on top of that, I had to leave to pick up my daughter from school and then come back and figure out where I left off and start up my posts again. I have not had this much excitement since earlier today with my exchange with Dusty.
February 25th, 2009
4:05 pm
Oops. The "kids" reference was not meant for all such as Paul, Mrs. G, Midori, BD, DB, well, you know.
February 25th, 2009
4:11 pm
Yeah, we really care.
February 25th, 2009
4:12 pm
gttim –
"Every time you said I said something I didn't. You said I said "Old, white men," and "Old, white people." I didn't."
First of all, as I demonstrated it wasn't a lie. Second of all, even if it was, it was a single event. Do you know what repeatedly means?
"If I say my dog is white, it does not mean all dogs are white. You either a liar, or are stupid. Or both. Study logic a little."
Thanks for the silly ad-hominem attack. My response actually was a very logical argument. You just aren't capable of understanding it. To use your analogy, what you said is "Dogs are historically white", not "your dog".
"Because one, or more, "old, black sheriff" was immoral does not mean that "old, white sheriffs" were not. Again, I suggest you study logic a little. You are claiming false equivalencies. You can look that word up."
Again, you are very confused, but most bigots are.
I was simply pointing out that you don't have to white to be an immoral sheriff. I never claimed that there are no immoral white sheriffs. (I am saying "are" instead of "were", as your intital bigoted comment was in the present tense.)
Can you provide any logic for your statement that "old, white" sheriffs are more likely to be immoral than other sheriffs?
""Old, white sheriffs" have a long history of immorality. You can Google that."
Hmm. That sounds like a Midori line. When pressed to back up one of her silly claims, she tells people to just Google it. Well, I did and it provided nothing to back up your claim. How about you backing up your bigoted argument.
And remember, your argument has to be "logical", meaning that the exisitence of a few immoral "old, white sheriffs" does not prove that they tend to be immoral, as you claimed.
Frankly, I just think you have apply a bunch of stereotypes from movies and tv to the real world. Thats what bigots do.
February 25th, 2009
4:15 pm
Trash –
"gttim, the Bookman RightWingnutterbutters think slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow were all moral."
What a silly statement. Please give any supporting evidence to your claim that anyone on this board thinks slavery, lynching and Jim Crow laws were moral. I know that your twisted, ignorant and bigoted mind likes to think this, but please present any evidence.
"So naturally they think those ol' white sheriffs were just nice good ol' boys."
Nah, we just think that bigoted stereotypes like the ones you throw out every day are rooted in ignorance.
February 25th, 2009
4:15 pm
Doesn't anyone remember the treaty that Bush signed with the Iraqis before he left office? You know the one where All American troops would be out by the end of 2011?
February 25th, 2009
4:16 pm
All right, you mathematically challenged kids. Someone in the thread below, possibly Observer, made the claim that the 787 billion dollar package would cost over a trillion dollars with interest added and the context, as I recall was with respect to the deficit spending of over 1 trillion dollars that Bush left us with. If I am wrong about the context then pull up the series of posts to point it out. Anyway, to keep the comparison in an apples-to-apples sort of consistency, one would need to add in the annualized interest to the 787 billion and I jokingly threw in a 10 APR value to prove that even that outrageous amount would not push the 787 billion to the trillion dollar deficit level that Bush left us with and that is assuming that the trillion dollar level even included things like the war expenditures and interest. Does it? Anyone. K. Any more questions on this topic?
February 25th, 2009
4:19 pm
At this moment, there have been no significant political decisions made in Iraq. They have been kicked down the road continually, and I don't expect them to be made by 2011. Oil division and administration is still a bone of contention among the 3 factions there. Territorial division among the 3 has not been decided. The disposition of Muqtada el-Sadir's massive force that can turn Iraq into a killing freny.
Tom Ricks has called the surge an uncategorical political failure, because the above problems were supposed to be resolved during the surge and not a finger has been lifted to resolve them.
This has been emphasized by every credible journalist who has spent most of the entire occupation on the ground in Iraq including Ware from Time, Richard Engle, NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent, and Tom Ricks who has been there at length many times.
I would put the chances of Obama's drawing down to 50-60,000 by 2011 at about 30-70.
I don't know how many of you have been to Vatican City, but that's the size of the enormous fortress of an embassy that has been constructed. The secret cost estimates are well over a billion.
In case you haven't been to Vatican city but have been to or seen a football game, the new embassy is the size of 80 (eighty) football fields. Why the cost and size is so prodigious or Ginormous is a great question that no one seems to want to answer.
"What kind of embassy is it when everybody lives inside and it's blast-proof, and people are running around with helmets and crouching behind sandbags?" Edward Peck, a former American diplomat in Iraq, asked in 2006.
The cost of running this boondoggle will be so off the wall high that plans are being made to rent out part of it–to whom, and how security is going to work when and if that is done is a novel question but it sounds plain whacky.
Many have suggested that it be built far underground.
What we have succeeded in buiding is an exponentially increasing upward curve on the graph of female suicide bombers.
February 25th, 2009
4:19 pm
gttim -
"You didn't answer the question."
Yes I did, but let me be more explicit: I never made any statements as to ultimate cost of the stimulus. I was simply pointing out how ignorant Taxpayer's math was.
"Plus, my point supports Taxpayers claim that the trillion dollar thing you wingnuts keep bringing up is wrong, and Taxpayer is right"
OK. If Taxpayer is right, provide the formula for how he arrived at his $866 number. Personally it looks to me that he multiplied $787 time 10% and added it to the principal which comes to $865.7 which rounds up to $866.
Please provide me with your formula, and no calling me a wingnut and a liar is not a formula. LOL
February 25th, 2009
4:20 pm
Wyld Bull,
I have called you out before and you declined. Are you now accepting my offer to put it on the line for Jay to decide? Any time dude. Put up or shut up, like I have had to tell you repeatedly now.
February 25th, 2009
4:21 pm
First of all, as I demonstrated it wasn't a lie. Second of all, even if it was, it was a single event. Do you know what repeatedly means?
I documented two. Two is repeatedly. Can you not count either?
Thanks for the silly ad-hominem attack. My response actually was a very logical argument.
It was not "ad-hominem." It was directly on point.
I was simply pointing out that you don't have to white to be an immoral sheriff.
Which I never expressed, nor disagree with.
Can you provide any logic for your statement that "old, white" sheriffs are more likely to be immoral than other sheriffs?
Here is one. This will also show you how to find others.
And remember, your argument has to be "logical", meaning that the exisitence of a few immoral "old, white sheriffs" does not prove that they tend to be immoral, as you claimed.
Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that " "old, white sheriffs" does not prove that they tend to be immoral."
Another one! Not in the civil rights time.
Sorry, I don't have time to do research for you.We know I am right, however.
February 25th, 2009
4:21 pm
Taxpayer -
Ohhhh. Taxpayer was just joking when he was dead wrong. That's so much easier than just admitting he was wrong. LOL
gttim – Why don't you ask Taxpayer your tax cut question? You can call him a wingnut and a liar if it soothes your fragile ego.
February 25th, 2009
4:23 pm
Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that " "old, white sheriffs" does not prove that they tend to be immoral."
Should be:
Actually, there are lots of cases, and finding a high number would be able to allow you to claim that "old, white sheriffs do tend to be immoral."
Copy and paste error.
February 25th, 2009
4:25 pm
Mike, be a man and accept that you are wrong, and quit trying to deflect blame. You wingnuts always whine that it is somebody else's fault! That is not what real men do! They accept blame when they are wrong. Suck it up. Your whining is really unbecoming.
February 25th, 2009
4:25 pm
"The long-term cost of the $825 billion economic recovery package before Congress could rise to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a top budget official said Tuesday."
February 25th, 2009
4:26 pm
I'm tryin to figure out "burger boy" claim that the right love war's. Enlighten us oh great one (in your own mind),what party was in power when the majority of wars were started? Like all normal humans,I wish there other ways to solve problems besides war. But as long as there are LOONEY'S in this world that do TERRIBLE things there will be war. Can anyone tell me of a time in the history of man when there was'nt a war somewhere? You don't have to think hard-there has'nt been a time.
February 25th, 2009
4:26 pm
gttim -
LOL. You are so predictable. I knew you would throw Bull Conner out there. LOL
Yes. Bull Conner was a bad man. And the source of his badness? The fact that he was old and white. LOL
How about googling "old white sheriffs" like you said?
Your bigotry is pathetic, but hey, if you think that one's age and race is a good indicator of your morality, good for you.
February 25th, 2009
4:27 pm
From gttim, …Need smarter wingnuts…
Now wouldn't that be a pleasant change. Then again, they would no longer be wingnuts. Such a conundrum — we desire smarter wingnuts so we can finally have decent exchanges with the knuckle-draggers yet they would necessarily evolve into non-wingnuts in order for that decent exchange to take place.
February 25th, 2009
4:29 pm
gttim -
Please tell me what I was wrong about.
The fact that I don't think being old and white makes you more likely be an immoral sheriff
The fact that I think that Taxpayer's math was a joke
Be specific and feel free to call me a wingnut or some other silly attack.
February 25th, 2009
4:32 pm
"The long-term cost of the $825 billion economic recovery package before Congress could rise to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, a top budget official said Tuesday."
One month ago. More than the actual plan passed. Again, interest on tax cuts? Plus, the only reason the number could possibly be that high is because we are still paying Reagan and Bush and Bush's debt still. It is hard to pay off debt when you are saddled with the debt of previous spendthrifts.
Still, way to high. Why do you guys suddenly trust a number coming from the government?
Hey, I would love to play longer, but I have a life!
February 25th, 2009
4:33 pm
You guys toss around more personal insults and names than anybody else I have ever seen.
Some of them even get all bent out of shape if you call them Republicans. They even resort to calling themselves Constitutionalist whatevers and Liberated Libertarians, etc., and all while proudly proclaiming to have voted for the Republican candidate.
February 25th, 2009
4:34 pm
gttim –
Here is some logic for you
A) Taxpayer said:
"I will no longer reply to your childish accusations and name-calling again"
b) Taxpayer then said:
"Such a conundrum — we desire smarter wingnuts so we can finally have decent exchanges with the knuckle-draggers yet they would necessarily evolve into non-wingnuts in order for that decent exchange to take place."
c) Taxpayer is a hypocrite
I'd call him a wingnut too, but apprently that term can only be applied to people who disagree with him. On the other hand, AmVet and GodHatesTrash are reasonable fellow by virtue of the fact that they hate conservatives too.
February 25th, 2009
4:35 pm
If anyone here thinks that only Republican politicians benefit from war and they only are susceptible to the enticements of the money to be made from wars, then these people are simplistic fools. The Democrats are as much involved in the allocation of defense monies and they have been for quite a while now. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that Democrats haven't been wined and dined by the defense contractors, the oil companies and anyone else with a vested interest in Iran. They are just as vunerable as the Republicans. What always amazes me the most about this blog is just how simplistic and how easily you people think you can define the differences between conservatives and liberals. It is not a case where the specifics are black and white folks. It is more a case of gray and there are plenty of our politicians on both sides that just "love to be loved" (in the words of David Bowie)who live operate in this gray zone. Simply stated, they play you all for suckers by throwing out this idealistic "us against them" bull tripe which so readily swallow.
February 25th, 2009
4:38 pm
gttim –
"Still, way to high. Why do you guys suddenly trust a number coming from the government?"
Yeah, why should we trust the Director of the CBO when we can use Taxpayer's brilliant math.
Are you ever going to "be a man" and provide the formula that backs up your assertion that "Taxpayer was right?". Or you could "be a man" and admit that you were wrong.
Let me guess. You will do neither and call me a liar, a wingnut or something else..
February 25th, 2009
4:38 pm
Pogo -
Well said and every word is the truth.


text:
New York City public schools are open Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2014.
But school officials say all field trips are canceled Wednesday due to the wintry weather.
Families with busing questions can call the Office of Pupil Transportation at 718-392-8855.
The Archdiocese of New York says Catholic elementary schools in Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island will be closed Wednesday.
Catholic schools in Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, Sullivan, Orange will follow their local public school districts decision regarding school closings or delayed openings.Schools throughout the tristate region reported closures and delayed openings. Check to see if your school is on our list, visit: MyFoxNY.com
WTXF-TV330 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106-2796Phone: (215) 925-2929Fax: (215) 982-5494

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A much-anticipated evaluation of the No Child Left Behind Act — the sweeping federal law that imposed consequential accountability on all states and schools — found strong evidence that math achievement improved in the earlier grades as a result of the decades-long law.
But the controversial law had no impact on reading.
One of the challenges to analyzing the law has been separating out what changes in student performance were related to other variables including the improvements to the economy during the decade. All those moving parts made it hard for studies to offer any definitive claims about the law's impact, said researcher Thomas Dee. (I just finished a phone interview with Dee and will be writing that for my Monday education column. I will also post here.)
Dee and his colleague Brian Jacob sought out a credible control group. The foundation of their comparison became those states that imposed the earliest generation of statewide school-level accountability systems. In a podcast on Education Next, Dee notes that NCLB was just tinkering for many states since they already had accountability in place. "In other word, it was largely irrelevant for them," he said.
Using those pioneer states as a a control group, the researchers looked at the states that never had introduced any school-wide accountability.
And the results show mixed results: Improvements were concentrated in the earlier grades, most notably in grade 4 NAEP math scores and mostly among Hispanic and low-income students. In that respect, Dee says the law fell short of its so-called "moonshot rhetoric" that it would remake American education.
The study does not conclude why the improvements came in math over reading, suggesting that more work needs to be done to see whether there is something unique about teaching math in the early grades.
The revised NCLB plan under consideration by the Obama administration would get rid of the serious consequences for many of the nation's schools and instead limit those consequences for underperformance to the 5 to 10 percent of the lowest performing schools.
Under the Obama plan, the other 90 percent of the nation's schools would still have testing and public release of testing data, but not the consequences now imposed for failing to show progress among a wide range of student subgroups. Dee said getting data out for public consumption has not been shown to be sufficient to drive improvements to schools. If there are no consequences for schools, Dee predicts a reduction in improvements gained through policies like NCLB.
Now, here is the official release on the study:
Just as the Obama administration has signaled that it has made reauthorizing the landmark No Child Left Behind federal law a priority in 2010, an Education Next analysis by professors Thomas Dee and Brian Jacob shows that NCLB is responsible for marked gains in math skills, particularly among Latino and low-income students, but produced no improvements in reading achievement.
The impact NCLB has had on student achievement since its implementation in 2002 has always been difficult to gauge. Since the law applied to all public school students, there was no comparison group and it was impossible to determine which of countless factors contributed to student achievement.
However, authors Dee and Jacob conducted groundbreaking research, to be published in the summer issue of Education Next and available now online, comparing test score changes in states that did not have NCLB-style accountability systems (both publicizing performance and attaching consequences to the performance) in place before 2002 to changes in those that already did when NCLB was implemented.
Dee's and Jacob's findings suggest that "the accountability provisions of NCLB generated large and statistically significant increases in the math achievement of 4th graders and that these gains were concentrated among Hispanic and low-income students."
"Specifically, we find evidence that the accountability provisions of NCLB generated large and broad gains in the math achievement of 4th grad¬ers and somewhat smaller gains for 8th graders," said the authors. "Our results suggest that NCLB accountability had no impact on read¬ing achievement for either group."
The study relied on test-score data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "The Nation's Report Card." Data were available in 39 states for 4th-grade math, 38 states for 8th-grade math, 37 states for 4th-grade reading and 34 states for 8th-grade reading. The scholars found that NCLB raised the percentage of students who reached a basic level of proficiency by 10 percentage points in 4th grade math and by 6 percentage points in 8th grade math. The percentages reaching full proficiency in math increased by 6 percentage points in 4th grade, but no detectable gains were identified for the percentage reaching full proficiency in 8th grade math. Those identified as fully proficient in 4th grade reading increased by 2.5 percentage points, but no other significant reading impacts were identified. NCLB impacts on Hispanic math performance were even greater.
The research also found that NCLB increased achievement among higher-achieving students, casting doubt on concerns that the law has harmed this group.
The authors say that as lawmakers consider a redesign of NCLB, they may need to pay more specific attention to understanding what causes differing results by grade and subject.
"Understanding these differences, according to the analysis, will be critical as policymakers discuss the future design of NCLB," Jacob said. "Our results, much like earlier evaluations of state-level school accountability policies, show that we need to look closely at what's happening within our schools that can cause these changes in achievement."
Thomas Dee, currently an associate professor of economics at Swarthmore College, will be professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia this fall and Brian Jacob is professor of education policy and economics at the University of Michigan.
May 19th, 2010
12:39 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dr Math E Matics, Maureen Downey. Maureen Downey said: Major review of No Child Left Behind. Kids moved ahead in math, but in little else. http://bit.ly/a38n7K [...]
May 19th, 2010
12:42 pm
How much does ESL play into this? The "lingusitics" of math are the same (other than metric or standard) whether you are in Mexico, Greece, New Zeland or USA. Reading on the other hand is very dependent on the location/origin of the primary speakers of the home.
Thus I would expect things that are heavily mathmatical to increase while those dependent on language to decrease. Especially as more and more our public schools (private school aren't subject to the CRCT) are gaining students with non English backgrounds—Chinese, Latino, Indian (from India), Pakistani, German and Russian are just a few at our current school.
May 19th, 2010
12:43 pm
Ahhhhh darn.
You mean Reading First didn't make the huge monumental gains in reading that the "experts" said would occur? You mean "135 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction" didn't change peoples' lives? You mean to tell my unwavering devotion to teaching reading based on the "scientifically based" principles didn't do the trick. I just cannot fathom why teaching reading only using "phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension." What? DIBELS wasn't the answer? Direct Instruction wasn't manna fro heaven? We did read off the script. After a while, the children could read the words pretty good (whether or not they understood what they read is another story.
What more must we do?
May 19th, 2010
12:44 pm
I hope we can stop calling it "No Child Left Behind." That term makes me want to puke.
So kids improved in Math, eh? Does that prove causation? I doubt it. The lack of reading gains does not surprise me, either. I have seen a dip in reading and writing ability where I teach, as well as critical reading/reading comprehension skills. The reasons are simple and well known: social promotion and lack of dicipline.
We've known reading was crucial for quite some time now, and I have often said on this blog that studies show early childhood literacy is the single largest determining factor for future academic success; however, we continue to promote the cure du jour at the expense of reading and writing improvement. We also make excuse after excuse for low income students who act as though books were unattainable bars of gold that drop out of the sky, choosing instead to look at the pictures in ESPN the Magazine or Sports Illustrated. (I once proved the look-at-the-pictures theory by asking a student to read an article in SI. He looked at the first sentence, couldn't read it, and said he was more interested in the pictures and stats.)
So, whatever Obama's administration proposes, I'm sure it will continue to marginalize reading and increase Federal government involvement in local schools.
May 19th, 2010
12:48 pm
Here's a link that discusses the Obama administration's focus and the money machines that are driving the decision-making process at the federal level.
May 19th, 2010
1:47 pm
When you dumb down the standards and don't hold the kids to them anyway……
May 19th, 2010
1:51 pm
Where are the Atlanta Public Schools C.R.C.T. Test results? My child attends Atlanta Publics School System, and has yet to get his scores, yet my co-workers children who attend Cobb County Schools received their scores about two weeks ago.
Whata up with that?
May 19th, 2010
1:52 pm
@Seen it all, you said it all! I couldn't agree more!
May 19th, 2010
1:53 pm
Before we start shooting cannons in celebration of the dubious "achievements" of NCLB, let's view ROI…Return On the Investment in terms of monies expended and, more importantly, the adverse impacts upon the educational system, primarily those who have chosen to devote their lives to the betterment of younger generations:
* One of the first victims of NCLB was the school systems themselves. As in any facet of life, there are winners and there are losers. While the former are allowed to celebrate their collective achievements, the later DO NOT need to be forced into bowing their heads in the position of shame while acknowledging failure, yet this is exactly what all-too-many school systems have been obliged to contend with. Threats of funds withdrawl, not to mention the invasion of Federally-mandated paperwork, siphoning both time and resources, not to mention instructional time, have all served to greatly mitigate the value of teacher time.
* By placing the stigma of "FAILING SCHOOLS" upon those producing less-than-acceptable results, the students themselves have been led to believe that their dismal performance is attributable to many causes outside of their control…in short, NCLB has given the student an out, a reason for failure.
* Of course, in the process of it all, too many teachers' careers have been adversly affected. The very concept of "BAD TEACHER" has become a label attached to those whose students simply do not care, who, in the process of giving up individually, serve to only poison the atmosphere of learning.
Do not…I say again…DO NOT applaude this foolish initiative of a past administration simply because a few kids have finally acquired the mysteries of arithmetic. This would be akin to casting lavish accolades upon the beaver for finally learning to build the dam.
May 19th, 2010
1:54 pm
@What's UP! Scores haven't been released to teachers either, however they will be sent home before the last day of school. I'm not sure if Cobb's students took the test when APS did. That may be the reason. If you took it earlier, your score were back sooner.
May 19th, 2010
1:59 pm
Flypaper released this NCES table yesterday showing Big Declines at the top and middle of the achievement distribution on the PISA test during the NCLB era.
Like Jacobs and Dee they do show gains among the lowest performers but no where near the magnitude of these declines.
This closes the achievement gap but at what cost?
May 19th, 2010
2:07 pm
My son is in 2nd grade and is reading at a 5th grade level blah blah:) I began teaching him to read in pre-k using the Dick and Jane books that I learned to read with at an early age. These books use the most often used words in the english language and the words are used repetitively throughout the stories.
May 19th, 2010
2:10 pm
With respect to reading; I agree that discipline is a problem but are elementary kids today getting enough content background knowledge to understand passages?
Here's a great Dan Willingham video on the topic. I would love your thoughts on what he is saying.
Seen it all-
I can tell you're not a fan of ZIg's but the choices are not just betwwen DI and Whole Language (in its current iterations).
I have had wonderful luck with phonetically controlled readers that gradually introduce sounds and their letter representations. I tell them expressly which ones the current book is introducing and then later the less common spellings for already known sounds.
At the same time we are always reading wonderful books with rich language and funny or complex stories that they want to be able to read for themselves.
Why wouldn't the type of program I'm describing be a true balanced approach to teaching reading?
May 19th, 2010
2:15 pm
I left out the link to the video. More caffeine for me.
Dan is a cognitive psychologist and his most recent book is Why Don't Students Like School? that's short and very good.
May 19th, 2010
2:33 pm
V…..like you, I'm sick of the slogan also. The fact is, if school administrators would grow a pair and "leave a select few" behind, we'd be on the road to improvement. As has been mentioned, repeatedly…It's all about the discipline! As long as the warm and fuzzy notion that ALL children can and must succeed, those who come to school to learn will continue to be robbed of a quality education by those who don't.
But don't give up hope…
"Our children is learning."
-President George W. Bush
May 19th, 2010
2:34 pm
I find it ironic that we have a blog on the decreased reading ability within a few days of a blog in which posters advocate texting during school hours. Of course reading has lagged behind; what do you expect from our generation that can't not text?
I guess that I still should allow my students to read summaries on the Internet through their cell phones rather than reading out of some boring old book…
May 19th, 2010
3:00 pm
What should we change in NCLB to make it better? Like it or not, Senator Kennedy tried something new to improve the education system. I am not sure that it worked well. So where do we go next? Something different, not what we have done for years or decades.
May 19th, 2010
3:04 pm
high school teacher,
I'm not so sure the relationship is that black and white. I think ALL children can learn to "code switch;" however, it is not being enforced from a young age by their parents. When I was young, my parents drilled into my head that there were different acceptable ways of addressing people:
Friends: "What's up, man?"
Adult/Person of Authority: "Good morning, sir."
These are the skills that today's kids lack. They have never been held accountable for their actions, and they think it is ok to speak or write however they want, whenever they want. It might seem like a simple thing, but I really feel that this is the problem at the heart of the matter. When I was in school, we passed notes. Those notes did not adhere to rigid grammar conventions. They did not contain perfect spelling. They sometimes used symbols or pictures as shorthand for words/phrases (sound familiar?).
But I could still write the heck out of an essay.
May 19th, 2010
3:04 pm
was it something I said?
May 19th, 2010
3:39 pm
Seen it all: are you my good twin? 'Cause you said what I would say, but a whole lot nicer! BTW, we spend 220 minutes per day for Reading Only.
May 19th, 2010
3:40 pm
Ms. Downey: can you provide a link to the full report?
May 19th, 2010
3:44 pm
V, you do have a point – kids don't have the skill of discernment, which is very important!
May 19th, 2010
4:01 pm
Yeah, but we got to lower taxes while education chased it's tail for a decade.
May 19th, 2010
5:22 pm
V and former teacher…As a retired teacher,I could not say any of this better. I really got tired of parents telling me that by not giving their sweet teen a better grade I was breaking the law and would leave them behind…Then administrators got into this to…then It was time to retire.
May 19th, 2010
5:35 pm
Stop it!!!!! 220 minutes of just reading? I thought I had heard the best with "135 minutes of uninterrupted reading" (a true story). You definitely have me beat on that one.
May 19th, 2010
5:59 pm
Seen it: Almost–I mistyped it. 2 hrs 20 minutes (160 minutes) of no writing, no grammar, nothing but scripted reading (gag) and needs-based instruction focused solely on phonics and "fluency" (ie, saying words really fast) but NO focus on comprehension!!! And what is "reading" without comprehension! To quote the bard, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." We were told this year, after 6 years of this h3ll, that we might soon be "ready" to spend some time on comprehension! Meanwhile, I have 3rd graders who can read 200 wpm, but can't tell you what the story was about!
We now have kids who have for their entire K-5 school career NEVER paid a whit of attention to what the words MEAN!
Thanks, RF! Hope you FOB enjoyed the money!
My county would have spent the money on dog doo if it had the words "research based" on the box!
The amount of taxpayer money spent on this boondoggle blows the mind! Millions in our small county, alone!
May 19th, 2010
6:39 pm
I do not understand why my daughter's teacher does not request book reports or quiz the students on the reading material. It is easy to just coast when all you have to do is read and not understand. Yes, she can read several years above grade level. Understanding what she is reading…sometimes another story. Also, what happened to teaching Latin and Greek roots? Giving a student 5-10 spelling words a week just does not cut it.
May 19th, 2010
7:30 pm
Gwinnett Parent, teaching Latin and Greek roots, along with other language roots, went out the window when TPTB decided to ignore the fact that English is a hodgepodge of several different languages with all the often contradictory rules that blend engenders. Instead, they decided to treat it as if it were a language isolate. Instead of explaining that /psi/ sounds the same as /sigh/ because of the rules of the different language roots, they just glossed over those facts and told the kids…"because." Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
May 19th, 2010
7:30 pm
Maureen, I'm trapped in filterland!
May 19th, 2010
7:31 pm
I'm not sure that there is any magic to reading instruction. It is a very complex skill. Whole language didn't work. Direct instruction without the reading practice component doesn't work. The sad reality is that the old controlled vocabulary reading series along with lots of reading practice will help most children learn to read. It's not much fun and it is hard work. We forget how difficult this process is because most of us learned to read at a young age. I think that we are trying to make a simple fix for a complex problem and it's never going to work. There are too many variables.
I learned when my son was in kindergarten that some of this early reading stuff is developmental. My son didn't learn to read as quickly as his kindergarten peers and mid-year his teacher began approaching me about having him repeat kindergarten. A friend of mine, an early childhood educator, suggested to me that some of this is developmental and that, in her experience, the magic age is 6. Some children break the code earlier and some much later. Sure enough, right around his 6th birthday, he started to read. He did not repeat kindergarten.
One my husband's high school buddies was dyslexic. He spent his entire public school career in classes that were intended for students with low I.Q. He said he never understood why he knew things that his classmates didn't. After he graduated high school his mother sent him to see a reading specialist who "diagnosed" dyslexia. Today he is a college graduate with a degree in engineering.
I'm not sure that the average early childhood educator knows enough about reading to help children who are experiencing severe reading difficulties. Our school systems might be well-served to place some true reading experts on their staffs. Our kids deserve the kind of help that will allow them to be successful. Reading is a key skill. We should not leave it to chance.
May 19th, 2010
7:42 pm
Here's what most of us seem to fail to understand. It is BECAUSE of GOVERNMENT mandates that we have a vast public education system. Systems that emphasize PRIVATE education or PUBLIC education create very small elite educated groups and very LARGE uneducated groups.
We don't need to get GOVERNMENT out of schools, despite the populist mantra that is infecting the world today, we need to get ELECTED OFFICIALS out of schools. It was turning over education to those with no background WHATSOEVER in education that led to the train-wreck that is NCLB. It is the involvement of lawyers and businessmen who see everything in terms of ROI that has created much of the damage in our educational system, as well as a general attitude that education is evil. You simply can NOT reconcile an anti-intellectual society with good education.
No. We need to put education back in the hands of EDUCATORS. People who are EDUCATED, not people who get elected to office. We need to put the emphasis back on critical thinking and LEARNING, rather than testing and regurgitation. And most of all, we need to STOP crucifying anyone with an advanced degree. Do you honestly expect your children to value learning if you heap scorn upon the educated?
Get over yourselves.
May 19th, 2010
8:17 pm
I have a question for you teachers about reading. Is it possible we are teaching kids to read too young? My sons both learned to read in kindergarten, but I know I didn't even start until 1st grade. Any thoughts?
May 19th, 2010
8:39 pm
No Child Left Behind.
Epic Failure; Bush Administration
Race to the Top
Epic Failure; Obama Administration
May 19th, 2010
8:46 pm
In Georgia, the CRCTs were dumbed down, and they are used for NCLB compliance rather than some sort of nationally normed test. An 8th grade student who is reading or doing math at a 5th grade level can pass the 8th grade CRCT, and even if s/he can't pass the CRCT, s/he will probably be promoted anyway, and the school will be blamed for the student not passing, even if the student hasn't done any work or attended school regularly.
If there were actual realistic standards, and if there were actual consequences to the student for not meeting those standards, we might eventually see some improvement. Until then? I don't expect much.
May 19th, 2010
9:00 pm
ACTUALLY, RTTT will not cost a smidgen of what NCLB has cost.
May 19th, 2010
9:06 pm
ABC: I don't think you can teach a child to read until they are ready to read. My daughter was reading at 4 1/2; my son before he turned 4. My younger daughter was past 5. They each read when they were ready–they had the skills and interest and motivation. Interestingly enough, it is the younger one about to complete the Masters in astrophysics.
I have taught over 800 kids to read. No one did it "too early." I do think it is possible to TRY to teach your child before they are ready, when they have not developed the skill set needed. This leads to lots of frustration.
Let's worry about something else.
May 19th, 2010
9:29 pm
V…you nailed it completely!!
May 19th, 2010
10:23 pm
@Gwinnett Parent, how is your daughter's reading program set up? Most schools in Gwinnett are moving to a workshop model where the students are reading books at their instructional level. I don't give comprehension quizzes anymore, but I met with each of my students individually every week to discuss the books they were reading. It's amamzing. Most of my students can have a conversation about a book they're reading now. Before, all they could do was regurgitate the setting, characters, plot, problem and solution. Now, they can do that and so much more! Unfortunately, while this method of reading instruction produces more thoughtful readers, it often doesn't produce little bubble-filling automatons.
May 19th, 2010
10:38 pm
I teach struggling readers in high school, so I see the full spectrum of issues from kids who never fully mastered phonics to kids who struggle with basic comprehension (word callers). The problem with reading instruction is that we keep looking for the magic, all-encompassing program to do it all. The solution IS the problem. There is no single program that will do it, no matter how much money we throw behind it. We have to train teachers in a wide variety of reading instruction methods, assess children's abilities, and allow teachers the time to plan and teach what kids really need. Some kids do well in whole word instruction- they have phonics skills. So why teach them in a phonics based program? Some kids don't have full mastery of basic phonics. So why teach them in a whole word environment? We can quote research all day long, and it comes down to training teachers and empowering them to do what kids in their classroom need. That's the only way it will work. Group kids by needs and even set up whole classes based on similar needs, instead of force feeding a program and trying to offer remediation as an afterthought.
I spend hours each day doing the small group and one-on-one to try to catch up kids, and it can work if we'll quit spending so much time having teachers spout the "program" and submit reams of paperwork to prove they are doing it.
May 19th, 2010
10:41 pm
The Federal NCLB law was fashioned after a Texas approach that later was revealed to be all lies. Does anyone seriously think that after 10 years the federal NCLB will have any real impact?
Not this teacher.
The only thing that NCLB has done has wasted millions/billions of tax payer money. Remember, this was initiated by the REPUBLICANS that supposedly claim that they want fiscal responsibility. No. No really. What they really want is to kill public education.
May 20th, 2010
2:02 am
[...] economist Thomas Dee for my article on his new No Child Left Behind study led me to a fascinating published piece by him a few years back on whether the gender of the [...]
May 20th, 2010
5:59 am
Anyone who has read E.D. Hirsch will not be surprised by these findings; reading is a skill that can not be taught in isolation from content. It is not NCLB's emphasis on reading that is the problem, however, it's the failure of educators to implement effective reading strategies, i.e. through content rich history, literature, and science curricula.
May 20th, 2010
8:34 am
I disagree. I think it is easy to say that capitalism can't produce better schools when it has never been tried. You're right; we should get elected officials out of schools. However, I do not think it is possible to do that as long as schools are government run. We need to get a handle on this growing monster that we call our government.
May 20th, 2010
9:47 am
Two harmful aspects of NCLB are:
1. Expecting students with an IQ of 50 to learn the same topics at the same depth as someone of regular intelligence. The teacher in the room next to me teaches such children (MI). She used to teach them life skills, but that has been pushed by the wayside and now she "teaches" them about pH levels and World War II. They leave school at 21 and can't go grocery shopping on their own, but on a good day, they might remember WWII was in the last century.
2. The way reading is taught is ridiculous. We have socially promoted 9th graders who read at a 4th grade level. I have begged, begged, begged my administration to offer a resource reading class for these students so that they have some hope of getting caught up. A reading specialist on staff (she currently team-teaches social studies) offered to teach the courses. We are told that, because of NCLB, these students need to be "mainstreamed" into a regular class, where we read To Kill a Mockingbird and Shakespeare and these kids struggle and get frustrated. We are asking them to run a marathon when they can't jog around the block yet.
May 20th, 2010
10:08 am
[...] economist Thomas Dee for my article on his new No Child Left Behind study led me to a fascinating published piece by him a few years back on whether the gender of the [...]
May 20th, 2010
10:46 am
The teachers are no longer teaching reading. They have the Accelerated Reading program now. This has replaced all reading in schools. The teacher never hears them read and IRI (Individual reading inventory) is not completed. This should be done at the beginning of the year to see where student is and then again at the end. The students then take AR test on books they have read. At the bottom of this sheet tells the teacher what they scored. 1 to 10 questions. This is not a true indication of ones reading abilities but it sure take the work load off the teacher. This is why it's being done. This also challenges some motivated students to read. Not a true reading program though.
May 21st, 2010
3:08 pm
Booklover – YES!
"Expecting students with an IQ of 50 to learn the same topics at the same depth as someone of regular intelligence."
I remember being in school where you were actually grouped by your academic level. Call it what you will…but it made perfect sense (and I reference your point above).
As you also stated – kids are not learning actual skills that they need…most elementary kids BARELY write in cursive, can address an envelope, nor write a proper letter…and unfortunately, teachers can't actually weave those skills in to the curriculum because they have to teach to a ridiculous test that will mean absolutely nothing!
And yet – teachers are on the hook for children that can not "excel" by state "standards".
ah, the dumbing down of a republic…
May 22nd, 2010
8:35 am
Peter Meyer you are right. I wanted to incorporate social studies and science into the long reading time alloted each day, so that I could help the children with vocabulary and the differences in reading a fiction and non-fiction book and was told that I was not able to do that. When I have taught this way before, my students were more engaged, learned better reading skills that stuck with them, and increased their vocabulary. Reading cannot be taught just with the reading book. Teaching reading must be woven throughout the subjects and the day.
We need to offer one on one help for students who struggle with learning to read. I was a struggling reader while in elementary school in the late seventies/early eighties and without my pull out class, I would not be the voracious reader I am today. I am not sure if I would have graduated from college with an undergraduate and graduate degree.


text:
A400M closer to first flight, but loses client
There was good news and bad news for Europe's troubled airlifter last week. Airbus Military said the first A400M is now in the hands of the flight-test team and on course for a first flight by the end of the year. And the program gained a strong endorsement from the UK Royal Air Force commander. But South Africa canceled its order for eight aircraft and claimed a refund of $391 million already handed over.
Static tests and engine runups of the first A400M will now be undertaken at Seville, followed by taxi tests, which will culminate in a rejected takeoff at about 120 knots. The telemetry system to relay flight-test data from the aircraft will also be checked on the ground. Scheduled to be at the controls for the taxi tests and the first flight is Ed Strongman, head of A400M flight test; Ignatio Lombow is to be the copilot.
Much to the surprise of Airbus Military, South Africa pulled out after a cabinet meeting was told that the cost of the A400M had soared. The contract was signed in December 2006 and was worth a reported Rand 17 billion ($2.3 billion at today's exchange rate). Speaking after the cabinet meeting, a government spokesman told local reporters that the cost now is Rand 40 billion ($5.4 billion). "We don't recognize these figures," an Airbus spokesperson told AIN.
The South African deal also involved an industrial partnership, which may now be in doubt. Denel Saab Aerostructures was selected to supply front and rear fuselage top shells; wing-fuselage fairings; ribs and spares for the tail fin; and some of the center-wing box structure. Aerosud was slated to supply the wing tips and some internal structure and linings.
Speaking to the Reuters news agency at the Air Chiefs Conference here Saturday, Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton confirmed that the RAF still wants to take 25 A400Ms. But he warned that difficult negotiations with Airbus Military over cost are still to come. "We have got to stand firm and challenge industry," he was quoted as saying. Dalton said negotiators for the European launch-partner countries are looking at whether savings can be made by reshuffling upfront costs, and by finding more efficient ways to maintain the aircraft in service.
Please Register
In order to leave comments you will now need to be a registered user. This change in policy is to protect our site from an increased number of spam comments. Additionally, in the near future you will be able to better manage your AIN subscriptions via this registration system. If you already have an account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register.


text:
An accessible look at the mysteries that lurk at the edge of the known universe and beyond. The observable universe, the part we can see with telescopes, is incredibly vast. Yet recent theories suggest that there is far more to the universe than what our instruments record - in fact, it could be infinite. Colossal flows of galaxies, large empty regions called voids, and other unexplained phenomena offer clues that our own "bubble universe" could be part of a greater realm called the multiverse. How big is the observable universe? What it is made of? What lies beyond it? Was there a time before the Big Bang? Could space have unseen dimensions?
In this book, physicist and science writer Paul Halpern explains what we know - and what we hope to soon find out - about our extraordinary cosmos. The book:
©2012 Paul Halpern (P)2013 Audible, Inc.
"Great summary of modern cosmology"
As someone that had some very basic knowledge of the cosmos and the current theories, I was looking for something that discussed in depth, popular theories and knowledge that are currently being pondered by the brightest minds in modern cosmology. I felt that this book fit that description even better than anticipated.
It was a solid performance. I enjoyed that I did not have to even think about his performance, but could instead focus on the material.
I highly recommend this to anyone looking to broaden their overall knowledge of the cosmos. The material discussed is presented in an easily understood way. Furthermore, some description of the processes in which these bright minds used to reach these conclusions is discussed.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.