Still Hating America.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) They may not know, though it is possible to gauge what your enemy is doing. If the insurgents have been getting better training, we may not want to acknowledge it yet for political/diplomatic reasons. That's a bit less likely now that we're going after Iran in the press.

[For a long time, we wouldn't admit shootdowns, and still won't announce sniper kills as such, to try not to let the enemy know they've succeeded.]

(b) Thanks for the tip. I meant to use an (e.g.). I would still say that the losses reflect the natural results of more aggressive operations over urban population centers .

S_A_M

The best training available is in combat. As this thing drags on, OF COURSE the insurgents will get better at it. Unless we have such stunning victories that their supplies or personnel dry up or are disrupted, whatever they have will be increasingly better deployed and each combatant will have a better sense of what they are doing.

Our combatants have to do the same. That means changes in tactics, coming up with new plays, and anticipating what they'll learn next. More importantly, it means engagement, because if we are essentially passive and they are engaging, they'll get better faster than we will. Improving a passive position is much harder.

I think of the surge as a pure PR move on Bush's report, but it still may be useful if it gives the guys on the ground the ability to shuffle their deck a bit and come at some of the battles from a new angle.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you ever pass your thoughts on to the Pentagon? I'm sure there is a "contact us" at www.pentagon.gov

RT outbid them.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you ever pass your thoughts on to the Pentagon? I'm sure there is a "contact us" at www.pentagon.gov

I chat with a couple senior officers about things every now and then; I let them take it from there.

I trust you pass on your thoughts to www.whitehouse.com every now and then (damn! that used to be a porn site!)

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Probably.

As for the totality of your program, as you know, I am not in full agreement with parts of it, but, like G3, at the end of the day I would probably support it as an overall compromise.

On C-Span last night one of the editors of the Economist was speaking at the U.C. Berkeley School of journalism and he pointed out that our K - 12 system in the US is inferior in every way when compared to European systems and most developed Asian countries, but our higher education system is superior in almost every way. If you look at the top fifty universities in the world, something like forty five are in the U.S.

His suggestions on K-12 were very similar to mine but he framed them more in what was different in Asia and Europe. (The power of the teachers unions was stronger here, they did more performance evaluation for teachers in Europe and culled out the bad ones, in Europe they focused more on the basic skills and tested them, and they did a lot of testing in Europe and if you didn't pass you didn't move up etc?) He also pointed out that the problem here was not funding because we spent just as much on K-12 schools as they did in Western Europe and much more so than they did in developed Asian countries.

Of course at Berkeley these suggestions produced a lot of criticism among the audience. But it seemed that no one had any alternatives to the problem. All they had was criticisms. In my opinion the only way to combat the negative effects of globalization on the middle and lower class in this country is to improve our K-12 education system. Something needs to change but what? What is the liberal or center left suggestions for improving our schools? It seems to me they spend so much time criticizing conservative suggestions (which I somewhat understand because, although I like a lot of the conservative suggestions, some if it is down right loony - completely dismantling the state board of education, giving the counties complete and total discretion on what they teach, total privatization of the education system etc ) they don't seem to come up with their own alternatives.

In my opinion there can't be enough suggestions for improvement but it seems to me that there doesn't seem to be much coming from the left. What am I missing? Besides my suggestions what else can be done? I know that what I have suggested is not even close to even twenty percent of what can be done to improve the situation but what else could be done to improve our schools? Someone is hiding they ball; they have to be.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Yes, but to be fair, before you agreed with him, you needled him more than a little. He does not like that.

I am very sensitive. Its very rough being a misunderstood genius.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am very sensitive. Its very rough being a misunderstood genius.

I understand completely.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
On C-Span last night one of the editors of the Economist was speaking at the U.C. Berkeley School of journalism and he pointed out that our K - 12 system in the US is inferior in every way when compared to European systems and most developed Asian countries, but our higher education system is superior in almost every way. If you look at the top fifty universities in the world, something like forty five are in the U.S.

It at least used to be true of Europe and Japan that they had fundamentally different systems. They did not attempt to give more or less the same education to every student. In Germany, in particular, they fairly quickly tracked students between those who are likely (or allowed) to advance to secondary education and those who are not.

Such practices probably work wonders for your test numbers, but offend the American sense of equal opportunity.

He also pointed out that the problem here was not funding because we spent just as much on K-12 schools as they did in Western Europe and much more so than they did in developed Asian countries.

This assumes that the same level of funding is required in each country. This simply is not the case. As you can tell from the fact that they spend far less in developed Asian countries than they do in Europe.

In my opinion there can't be enough suggestions for improvement but it seems to me that there doesn't seem to be much coming from the left. What am I missing? Besides my suggestions what else can be done? I know that what I have suggested is not even close to even twenty percent of what can be done to improve the situation but what else could be done to improve our schools? Someone is hiding they ball; they have to be.

In DC, there have been proposals to do away with the elected school board and instead have a board made up of individuals appointed by the Mayor. I actually think that is an excellent idea for many jurisdictions as I am very skeptical of the types of people who run for school boards (i.e. it is common for them to be one-issue political partisans).

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
a gratuitious, unsubstantiated cheap shot about nothing.

New Board Motto.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
It at least used to be true of Europe and Japan that they had fundamentally different systems. They did not attempt to give more or less the same education to every student. In Germany, in particular, they fairly quickly tracked students between those who are likely (or allowed) to advance to secondary education and those who are not.

Such practices probably work wonders for your test numbers, but offend the American sense of equal opportunity.

Fascists. I just new they were cheating somehow.

Originally posted by Adder
This assumes that the same level of funding is required in each country. This simply is not the case. As you can tell from the fact that they spend far less in developed Asian countries than they do in Europe.

That is fair.

Originally posted by Adder
In DC, there have been proposals to do away with the elected school board and instead have a board made up of individuals appointed by the Mayor. I actually think that is an excellent idea for many jurisdictions as I am very skeptical of the types of people who run for school boards (i.e. it is common for them to be one-issue political partisans).

In rural California the most motivated candidates for school board are generally the ones who want to end sex education or the teaching of evolution or both.

[Spanky]

Last week C-SPAN featured a discussion about Rudolph Giuliani that left me shaking my head. The gist of the guest's message was that Giuliani was a "Rockefeller Republican" who was suddenly transformed into a darling of conservatives after 9/11. Today, Fox News echoed the same theme.

That's quite wrong. Social conservatives have trouble with Giuliani, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a Rockefeller (i.e. liberal) Republican. In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination. He came by that conservatism in the toughest crucible.

City Journal's Steven Malanga reminds us of the details. When Giuliani was elected mayor, New York City was Exhibit A in failed liberal governance. Crime was out of control. Public spaces were marred by a combination of omnipresent graffiti; so-called "squeegee men" who preyed on motorists; and raving homeless people who took up residence on sidewalks and in building entrances. Public employee unions had shaken down the city government for years. The tax base was eroding. The city government was deeply in debt, and fully one in eight New Yorkers was on welfare.

Giuliani transformed a city whose budget and workforce were larger than those of all but five or six states. He and police chief William Bratton famously cracked down first on quality of life crimes like panhandling and public urination. Teenagers who leaped over the turnstiles at subway entrances were arrested -- a departure from the practice under Mayor David Dinkins. Giuliani later quipped that the police under his predecessor had become "highly skilled observers of crime." Those turnstile jumpers turned out to possess a huge number of illegal guns, which were confiscated, and criminals throughout the city discovered that the New York police were breathing down their necks. The number of murders dropped from 1,960 in Dinkins's final year in office to 640 in Giuliani's last year. The overall crime rate dropped 64 percent, to levels not seen since the 1960s.

Giuliani accomplished this in the teeth of a genuinely ferocious assault from liberals, so-called "civil rights" figures like Al Sharpton (with whom Giuliani declined to meet), the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times. Actors and artists protested in the streets, and leading chin pullers in national magazines pronounced themselves troubled by Giuliani's "tactics." He was steadfast -- and the greatest beneficiaries were poor New Yorkers who lived in formerly dangerous neighborhoods.

Though he inherited a budget deficit, Giuliani declined to raise taxes on New Yorkers nearly bled white. He closed the budget gap with a combination of spending reductions (what a concept!) and modest tax cuts. Business boomed.

Giuliani attacked another sacred cow when he ended "open admissions" and remedial courses at the City University of New York. He was called lots of names by the usual suspects for this principled move. The result was to revive the university -- SAT scores of incoming students rose 168 points.

New York's welfare system was among the most bloated in the nation. Giuliani first culled the ranks for cheats and frauds -- eliminating 20 percent of the caseload. The mayor then introduced a workfare requirement -- able-bodied adults would be expected to do 20 hours of work in municipal offices in exchange for a welfare check. There were howls from the New York Times. The mayor was undeterred. Giuliani transformed welfare offices from check distribution centers into employment offices, where welfare workers coached clients on how to read the classifieds, how to dress for interviews and how to prepare a resume.

His approach toward the homeless was similar. Those who were able to work were encouraged to do so. Those who rejected an offer of shelter and insisted upon blocking public spaces and harassing passersby were issued summonses. For this Hillary Clinton lectured the mayor that Jesus was a homeless person.

There is no question that Giuliani's position on abortion and gun control will offend many Republicans. But let's be clear, he is no liberal. His conservatism has been tempered in New York City -- so it is steely indeed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
New Board Motto.

I'm disappointed no one liked my "knee-jerk genuflection" line.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
On C-Span last night one of the editors of the Economist was speaking at the U.C. Berkeley School of journalism and he pointed out that our K - 12 system in the US is inferior in every way when compared to European systems and most developed Asian countries, but our higher education system is superior in almost every way. If you look at the top fifty universities in the world, something like forty five are in the U.S.

Just as an aside, comparing top tier higher education to K-12 system isn't particularly useful. The top fifty universities in the world can cherry pick their students. Public schools are pretty much stuck with what they get. I've done time at one of the Universities that will probably end up in the top ten in the world*, and I'd say that my fellow students made that the best educational experience I've ever had as much as the lectures, the tutorials, and the exams.

*That one wasn't in the US and teaches students completely differently than my experience with the three US institutions of higher learning that I've attended. Yes, I know, I'm over-educated.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Last week C-SPAN featured a discussion about Rudolph Giuliani that left me shaking my head. The gist of the guest's message was that Giuliani was a "Rockefeller Republican" who was suddenly transformed into a darling of conservatives after 9/11. Today, Fox News echoed the same theme.

That's quite wrong. Social conservatives have trouble with Giuliani, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a Rockefeller (i.e. liberal) Republican. In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination. He came by that conservatism in the toughest crucible.

City Journal's Steven Malanga reminds us of the details. When Giuliani was elected mayor, New York City was Exhibit A in failed liberal governance. Crime was out of control. Public spaces were marred by a combination of omnipresent graffiti; so-called "squeegee men" who preyed on motorists; and raving homeless people who took up residence on sidewalks and in building entrances. Public employee unions had shaken down the city government for years. The tax base was eroding. The city government was deeply in debt, and fully one in eight New Yorkers was on welfare.

Giuliani transformed a city whose budget and workforce were larger than those of all but five or six states. He and police chief William Bratton famously cracked down first on quality of life crimes like panhandling and public urination. Teenagers who leaped over the turnstiles at subway entrances were arrested -- a departure from the practice under Mayor David Dinkins. Giuliani later quipped that the police under his predecessor had become "highly skilled observers of crime." Those turnstile jumpers turned out to possess a huge number of illegal guns, which were confiscated, and criminals throughout the city discovered that the New York police were breathing down their necks. The number of murders dropped from 1,960 in Dinkins's final year in office to 640 in Giuliani's last year. The overall crime rate dropped 64 percent, to levels not seen since the 1960s.

Giuliani accomplished this in the teeth of a genuinely ferocious assault from liberals, so-called "civil rights" figures like Al Sharpton (with whom Giuliani declined to meet), the New York Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times. Actors and artists protested in the streets, and leading chin pullers in national magazines pronounced themselves troubled by Giuliani's "tactics." He was steadfast -- and the greatest beneficiaries were poor New Yorkers who lived in formerly dangerous neighborhoods.

Though he inherited a budget deficit, Giuliani declined to raise taxes on New Yorkers nearly bled white. He closed the budget gap with a combination of spending reductions (what a concept!) and modest tax cuts. Business boomed.

Giuliani attacked another sacred cow when he ended "open admissions" and remedial courses at the City University of New York. He was called lots of names by the usual suspects for this principled move. The result was to revive the university -- SAT scores of incoming students rose 168 points.

New York's welfare system was among the most bloated in the nation. Giuliani first culled the ranks for cheats and frauds -- eliminating 20 percent of the caseload. The mayor then introduced a workfare requirement -- able-bodied adults would be expected to do 20 hours of work in municipal offices in exchange for a welfare check. There were howls from the New York Times. The mayor was undeterred. Giuliani transformed welfare offices from check distribution centers into employment offices, where welfare workers coached clients on how to read the classifieds, how to dress for interviews and how to prepare a resume.

His approach toward the homeless was similar. Those who were able to work were encouraged to do so. Those who rejected an offer of shelter and insisted upon blocking public spaces and harassing passersby were issued summonses. For this Hillary Clinton lectured the mayor that Jesus was a homeless person.

There is no question that Giuliani's position on abortion and gun control will offend many Republicans. But let's be clear, he is no liberal. His conservatism has been tempered in New York City -- so it is steely indeed.

He certainly did some effective things. But it also helps to be mayor during the longest period of sustained economic growth in the twentieth century.

[SlaveNoMore]

... that not only is the leadership of the Democratic party - despite repeated and vehement denials by Sidd, Ty, Gatti et. al. - completely and utterly beholden to the moonbat lefty KOS, ANSWER, Michael Moore crowd - but that they are nothing more than a bunch of amoral pussies:

Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options.

Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa.,[a/k/a ABSCAM convict] and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups [a/k/a the New Democrat party], the coalition's goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.

The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to admit that the war is politically unsustainable.

As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement -- the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.

Slowly starving our own fucking troops in a war zone - that is what this pig Murtha is now proposing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
He certainly did some effective things. But it also helps to be mayor during the longest period of sustained economic growth in the twentieth century.

That he did nothing to tinker with that growth is another feather in his cap. Bill Clinton was a wonderful president because he did Nothing.

Its doing Something that's made the mess we're in now.