So, jerks. Sunday, sometime after noon, for a meeting, non NFL, but nonetheless. A sunday is a sunday. My place, bring booze, bring saturated fats. Bring, yourself. I'm tired, of staring at Iron and Blood. So this is now the top post.
Draper
« | February 2004 | » | ||||
![]() |
||||||
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 |
I'm not sure that president Bush has ever been a believer in real personal freedom. On most social and cultural issues--from drug legalization to marriage rights--Bush has always been an authoritarian-style conservative. He has never consistently or boldly spoken of the need to restrain government as a good in itself. He has governed exactly as one would have expected, if you consider him a Texas adherent of the religious right who happened to grow up in a family committed to public service. Whatever the context, Bush has had choices. And almost every choice he has made has been in the direction of an authoritarian, big-spending conservatism, not a frugal, libertarian one.And then it hit me: George Bush is a lot like Otto von Bismarck.
Bismarck inherited a Prussian estate; Bush inherited an oil fortune. Both were mediocre students who spent their youth aimlessly. Politically, both Bush and Bismarck are traditionalist social conservatives without clear principles about economic matters, where they are guided by pragmatism rather than principle.
Like Bismarck, Bush sees domestic politics as a means to an end - the end being political survival and the continuation of his foreign policy. Bismarck enacted the world's first social security system in order to buy the political support of the rapidly expanding class of industrial workers. Bush recently passed a prescription drug entitlement in the hope of buying the support of the nation's fastest-growing demographic cohort: the elderly. Bush throws bones (judicial appointments, partial-birth abortion ban) to his conservative base, just as Bismarck attacked Socialists and Catholics to keep his base of reactionary Prussian Junkers satisfied.
Even the foreign policies of the two men are similar. Bismarck was haunted by the memories of the crushing defeat of Prussia at the hands of Napoleon. He used aggressive tactics - such as a "preemptive" war with France - to achieve the conservative goal of security. Bismarck disdained global ambitions; he once declared, "Colonies for Germany are like fur coats for Polish nobles". Similarly, Bush derided nation-building during his presidential run, but has ended up invading and then reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of "homeland security".
But there is one glaring difference between Otto von Bismarck and George Bush: Bush's failure to subordinate domestic political gains to the greater goals of his foreign policy. Bush wants to practice realpolitik abroad while submitting fantasyland budgets at home. Sullivan:
He could have made an argument for general sacrifice, keeping the deficit manageable, while fighting an important war. He chose not to. I emphasize the word "chose." Rather than make the case for war responsibly and coherently, he argued that we could afford everything: guns, butter, margarine, whipped cream, whatever.In 1862, when the Reichstag balked at providing funding for the army, Bismarck berated them with these famous words:
The great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and the resolutions of majorities... but by iron and blood.If George Bush would demonstrate an iron will in demanding the funding for a larger and stronger military, a lot less blood would have to be shed by American soldiers.
Marc
Unlike most of the stuff I write on this blog, today's post comes from Maryland, and more specifically, deals with education.
Maryland's education officials are offering class time and in some cases academic and community service credit to students who attend a downtown Annapolis rally that will encourage legislators to accept the Thornton Commission's reccommendations on school funding. The article raises a number of issues, including whether its proper to allow students participating in advocacy (and in this case political) activities to receive community service credit toward graduation. Further, is it appropriate for schools to use government money in order to lobby the government? And I was prepared to talk about both of those issues (and a couple of others) except that I then read another article dealing with teachers.
Today's Sun also reports that Baltimore City School chief Bonnie Copeland has announced the preparation of plans to layoff about 1200 city teachers if the teachers do not agree to either a temporary pay cut or furlough. The Baltimore Teacher's Union is expected to vote on the issue tommorrow morning. It's likely that any cost-cutting efforts that include pay cuts or furloughs will be rejected, and layoffs will begin.
These two articles kinda got me thinking: What in the hell is wrong with teachers?
I'm prepared to look beyond the rather smarmy tactic of literally busining in hordes of uninterested students to a rally so that the teacher's union can demand more money from the government. What's more troubling to me is the fact that none of these "concerned" teachers used this opportunity as a chance to (gasp) teach. Couldn't some enterprising young civics teacher assign his or her class to research the issues involved in the education funding debate? They could hold mock committee meetings and travel to Annapolis to observe the actual proceedings or have an audience with their representative. Heck, they could even write letters to their representatives that urge support (or comdenation, in a perfect world) for the Thornton measures. But at least they'd be learning, instead of being treated like interchangeable cogs in the teacher's union's unwavering efforts to pry loose every last dime that the government has and call it "helping kids." (Not only are they not learning, but they're being used for poltical purposes and are receiving kickbacks as a result. Anyone wondering why kids grow increasingly cynical about politics and government?)
The second article is even more clear than the first. Teachers are willing to take themselves out of the classroom rather than accept a pay cut. While the pay cut (which would be temporary, by the way) would be across the board, meaning that everyone (including administrators, facilitators and janitors) would be affected, the job losses will affect teachers more so than other people connected to the schools. The teachers, either because of stubborness, or stupidity or corruption (or more likely a combination of all three) are willing to let their students take the fall, rather than themselves. What's their answer? Increase the amount of time given to paying off the $58 million cumulative budget deficit from the current projection of 18 months to several years. Forgive me for sounding cynical, but I'm guessing I'm not the only person who thinks the Union's timetable for debt reduction would be so long that it would coincide with a number of vital teacher pay raises.
Look, I know that a great many people who are teachers are good at their job. They are dedicated and want what's best for their students. But as a group, teachers behave just like any other special interest group in this country. Just like the farmers and the elderly, they line up at the great government trough elbowing each other in order to get the best chance at the most money.
(Coincidentally, the Democrats being in bed with all three of these groups is a large part of their problem)
Is more money going to help our schools? Probably not. But what could help is teachers putting aside their own personal poltical agendas and re-dedicating themselves to the ideals that got them into teaching in the first place: because they wanted to help children. (Or couldn't find anything else they were good at in college. Either way.)
Tony
I'm waiting for a Kerry speech in which he seems angrier about 9/11 than he does about tax cuts.I guess that's why I'll have to choke down my vomit over all the ridiculous spending and vote for Bush anyway.I'm waiting for an ad that simply puts the matter plainly: who do you think Al Qaeda wants to win the election? Who do you think will make Syria relax? Who do you think Hezbollah worries about more? Who would Iran want to deal with when it comes to its nuclear program - Cowboy Bush or "Send in the bribed French inspectors" Kerry? Which candidate would our enemies prefer?
Marc
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Saw this quote on Instapundit, where it was attributed to the Gipper.
Marc
AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13Well, if those turn out to be right, it looks like Dean is finished, and Edwards is the alternative to Kerry. Dean's plan to wait out these primaries and emerge as the alternative to Kerry could only have worked if Kerry swept the board and knocked everyone else out.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11
Now it's Edwards who will benefit from the inevitable Muskie Kerry backlash. Edwards is the only guy who really scares me running against Bush.
Marc
There was good news for skiers today as the world's most famous furry forecaster saw his shadow on Groundhog Day, predicting six more weeks of winter.Halftime Show:
It appeared that Timberlake ripped Jackson's outfit as he reached out to her, revealing her breast with what appeared to be a sun-shaped silver nipple ring.Marc
In a Wednesday interview, McAuliffe voiced personal support for keeping New Hampshire's primary and Iowa's caucus the nation's first tests of candidate strength. But he estimated that 90 percent of the Democratic National Committee's members wants to eliminate their leadoff positions. Iowa holds the nation's first caucus eight days before New Hampshire's primary.MarcMcAuliffe said New Hampshire's record voter turnout was "first and foremost" helpful for the state. But he said that to change minds on the DNC, "The second part of it is even more critical. New Hampshire needs to make itself a blue state in November 2004." That means the state needs to give its four electoral votes to the Democratic nominee, not President George W. Bush.
Rivals including front-runner John F. Kerry are buying TV ads in South Carolina and other states holding primaries or caucuses Tuesday, but the former Vermont governor has chosen to forgo further advertising in this round, focusing instead on the Feb. 7 caucuses in Michigan and Washington state, campaign officials said. The decision marks a notable shift in fortunes for an innovative candidate who revolutionized fundraising via the Internet and led all Democrats in 2003 by collecting nearly $41 million.The Deanyboppers on the blog are starting to sound worried:
People need some guidance here :} Need to know where we are going..whats going on with the ads..if money situation is ok-You guys NEED to address this in a thread...please :}Now Dean has to pray that everybody else drops out after Feb. 3, or else this strategy is a bust. How much do you want to bet that Brokaw asks Dean about money during the debate tonight?Could someone please explain to me how we can possibly be in financial trouble with a reported $42 million raised and a million on the bat this week?
I'm so nervous. please show us you can win. i'm a bit upset about pulling all ads in feb 7th states. wouldn't it be nice if you guys could make stunning ads and run them 2 days before the election? or right after super bowl sunday?
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE MONEY?!? Just three weeks ago it looked like WE had the best operation going - and now we can't even afford to put up ads in the next seven states? I think HQ owes us all a frank explanation as to where our money has gone, and why it wasn't used more effectively to get us the nomination, let alone take on George W. Bush.
Marc
The Washington Post's Michael Wilbon is spending the week in Houston covering the game. So far this week he's written columns about the Panthers GM, Patriots place kicker Adam Vinatieri, and Panthers return specialist, part-time running back and former XFL star Rod Smart (a.k.a. He Hate Me). Not exactly the Mt. Rushmore of professional football.
In spite of this, many observers (myself included) are expecting a good game between two teams who match-up well. Much to the NFL's chagrin, they're not going to be able to sell McNabb, or Manning or Dante Hall or, well, anybody. Now they've got to sell the game itself...and they gave themselves two weeks to do that.
The Super Bowl is not about football fans. Conference Championship Sunday is about real football fans. The Super Bowl is about drinking, and parties, and food and commercials. It is the game as happening. The snag in this year's plan is that, while the game presents interesting matchups that true football fans will revel in, the star-power to fuel the hype for two weeks simply isn't there. No other year has provided such a clear example that the NFL's occassional use of an extra week between Conference Championship Sunday and the Super Bowl is a bad policy. In this year's case, neither team had the ability or desire to fuel the hype machine for an extra week. On the reverse side, when teams do have bonafide superstars, the game is often over-hyped, leading to dissappointment no matter the outcome. I understand the league's desire to extend its season, and its ability to make money, by keeping the extra week. But the NFL must realize that the fans are happier and the games are often better (or at least seem better) when we've only got one week to wait.
Tony