Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:44 pm
Yes there is. Hence the secret session.DrDetroit wrote:The was no issue over the progress of the report.
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:50 pm
As Roberts stated yesterday afternoon...the issue was discussed last week and a decision made to wrap it up next week, dolt. What? Roberts was lying?
BTW - I love Reid's rhetoric that this was a win for Americans. How so, exactly? The Democrats hid the Senate behind closed doors. We didn't win anything. We don;t know what went on because Reid demanded that they hide behind closed doors.
Nope, this was a stunt, plain and simple to try and turn the debate back toward intelligence and the Iraq war simply because PlameGate didn't deliver what the Dems and their media pals told us would be Fitzmas.
BTW - I love Reid's rhetoric that this was a win for Americans. How so, exactly? The Democrats hid the Senate behind closed doors. We didn't win anything. We don;t know what went on because Reid demanded that they hide behind closed doors.
Nope, this was a stunt, plain and simple to try and turn the debate back toward intelligence and the Iraq war simply because PlameGate didn't deliver what the Dems and their media pals told us would be Fitzmas.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:53 pm
Yep. He was lying. The GOP is determined that there will be no reckoning over the quagmire in Iraq.DrDetroit wrote:As Roberts stated yesterday afternoon...the issue was discussed last week and a decision made to wrap it up next week, dolt. What? Roberts was lying?
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:04 pm
You guys have to stop with this handwringing over accountability. The President weon the election and the Republicans picked up more seats despite you guys blatantly lying about these intelligence issues.
The Senate Select Intelligence Committee has already investigated whether the intelligence was fabricated and whether intelligence anaylsts were pressured and concluded that neither allegation was true.
This second phase is an investigation into how the administration used this intelligence. This is nothing more than an attempt to politicize the analysis and decisionmaking related to intelligence. They'll definitely find that there was intelligence questioning Iraqi development and possession of wmd's alongside with intelligence decidedly otherwise. They'll find that the intelligence anaylsts weighed the evidence and, as reported to the President via Tenet, that the intelligence indicating that Iraq developed and possessed wmd's overwhelmed the contrary evidence. They'll find that the administration routinely made an effort to verify and re-verify all of this data by communicating directly with the analysts to confirm the intelligence estimates they generated. They'll find that the administration then used this intelligence to develop their policies and plans.
Nothing more to it then that.
What the Democrats are doing is politicizing the process and using hindsight blast the administration for appropriatly using the intelligence estimates they were provided with. What will result is a chilled intelligence analysis process where analysts will not, justifiably, offer up their gut assessments and the decisionmaking process will stall.
Good job, fellas.
The Senate Select Intelligence Committee has already investigated whether the intelligence was fabricated and whether intelligence anaylsts were pressured and concluded that neither allegation was true.
This second phase is an investigation into how the administration used this intelligence. This is nothing more than an attempt to politicize the analysis and decisionmaking related to intelligence. They'll definitely find that there was intelligence questioning Iraqi development and possession of wmd's alongside with intelligence decidedly otherwise. They'll find that the intelligence anaylsts weighed the evidence and, as reported to the President via Tenet, that the intelligence indicating that Iraq developed and possessed wmd's overwhelmed the contrary evidence. They'll find that the administration routinely made an effort to verify and re-verify all of this data by communicating directly with the analysts to confirm the intelligence estimates they generated. They'll find that the administration then used this intelligence to develop their policies and plans.
Nothing more to it then that.
What the Democrats are doing is politicizing the process and using hindsight blast the administration for appropriatly using the intelligence estimates they were provided with. What will result is a chilled intelligence analysis process where analysts will not, justifiably, offer up their gut assessments and the decisionmaking process will stall.
Good job, fellas.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:23 pm
Wow, that was very clearly thought out and insightful. Okay, who stole Detroit's password?!
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 7:26 pm
Read more, OCMike.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:28 pm
Am I the only one having "My Cousin Vinnie" flashbacks?OCmike wrote:Wow, that was very clearly thought out and insightful.
Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:16 pm
Next time make sure you add at least one "STFUDrDetroit wrote:Read more, OCMike.
LMAO :roll: :twisted:" sentence or everyone will think someone's hijacked your nic.Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:31 pm
ahhhnold was on the bill handel show this morning pimping bigtime.......
he was asked to debate the naysayers and his response was 'the people of california sent me here to reform....blahblahblah'
whover is coaching him needs a more mcainish strategy
he was asked to debate the naysayers and his response was 'the people of california sent me here to reform....blahblahblah'
whover is coaching him needs a more mcainish strategy
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:16 pm
don't forget to vote
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:31 pm
I voted last week.
Twice.
Twice.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:32 pm
I didn't want to vote too many times. I live in a heavily Republican precinct and for some reason my votes keep coming out differently than the way I cast them.mvscal wrote:How about your pets? Deceased relatives? C'mon...every vote counts.Mikey wrote:I voted last week.
Twice.
And you call yourself a Democrat?!?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:34 am
Early results:
The good....
So far, the unions getting it broken off in their collective asses.
Teacher Tenure up by a couple points, Paycheck Protection 54-45.
Parental notification is up also.
The Bad...
Redistricting and Fiscal sanity still doomed in the People's republic of Kali.
And of course the buttugly-Donald Frye here in San Diego going back to a well deserved obscurity.
The good....
So far, the unions getting it broken off in their collective asses.
Teacher Tenure up by a couple points, Paycheck Protection 54-45.
Parental notification is up also.
The Bad...
Redistricting and Fiscal sanity still doomed in the People's republic of Kali.
And of course the buttugly-Donald Frye here in San Diego going back to a well deserved obscurity.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:53 pm
Diogenes wrote:Early results:
The good....
So far, the unions getting it broken off in their collective asses.
Teacher Tenure up by a couple points, Paycheck Protection 54-45.
Can you say "wishful thinking"?
Buwahahahahahahah @ you and Ahnold!!!!
Sanity - 4
Ahnold and government by $$$$$ - 0
EOS
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:00 pm
If by wishful thinking you mean Early Results...Mikey wrote:Diogenes wrote:Early results:
The good....
So far, the unions getting it broken off in their collective asses.
Teacher Tenure up by a couple points, Paycheck Protection 54-45.
Can you say "wishful thinking"?
Buwahahahahahahah @ you and Kali!!!!
Union $$$$$$$$$$$$ - 4
Ahnold and sanity - 0
Bunch a dumbfucks in this state.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:02 pm
Celebrating "early results" is always wishful thinking.
Now go away.
WAR the red N
[web]http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm[/web]
Now go away.
WAR the red N
[web]http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm[/web]
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:20 pm
Yet they act like they know everything there is to know about everything.Diogenes wrote:Bunch a dumbfucks in this state.
WAR reaping what you sow.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:23 pm
Sheesh Arnold. How did THAT taste?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:34 pm
The Girlynator is singing a different tune. It's amazing he can sing at all with mvscal on his sac and special election props in his ass.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:59 pm
Congrats libs.
So much for accountability (teachers) and fiscal responsibility.
So much for accountability (teachers) and fiscal responsibility.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:25 pm
What was the rest of California thinking? San Diego got it right.
Now what? Budget? Taxes?
Mikey, I'm still interested in why teachers waiting longer for
tenure isn't a good idea.
Now what? Budget? Taxes?
Mikey, I'm still interested in why teachers waiting longer for
tenure isn't a good idea.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:28 pm
That they don't want to get fucked by the corporate state?trev wrote:What was the rest of California thinking?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:49 pm
No on everything. Good, governement by proposition blows huge chunks of suck.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:58 pm
So you disagree with our Founding Fathers?
Why do you hate democracy?
Why do you hate democracy?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:04 pm
Our founding fathers would be appalled to see ballot propositions.DrDetroit wrote:So you disagree with our Founding Fathers?
Why do you hate democracy?
The Electoral College out front should have told you that.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:05 pm
Yeah, because the Constitution has no mechanism by which to amend it, right?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:08 pm
Not via a popular vote.DrDetroit wrote:Yeah, because the Constitution has no mechanism by which to amend it, right?
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:32 pm
Hmmmm...trev wrote:What was the rest of California thinking? San Diego got it right.
Now what? Budget? Taxes?
Mikey, I'm still interested in why teachers waiting longer for
tenure isn't a good idea.
I thought the earlier argument was about the proper level of funding for education.
You want to know my take on 74? I didn't really think it was a "bad" idea, but can you honestly say that it would have made any difference? The problems in our schools run a lot deeper than the number of years a teacher needs for tenure. I saw this initiative as a cop-out and a distraction, blaming the teachers for all the education problems, and a waste of money like all of the other initiatives in this "special" election. I would have voted no on that principle alone.
Governor Took Low Road on Education
Steve Lopez
Points West
November 9, 2005
Arnold Schwarzenegger held a great opportunity in his hands when he became governor of California. He could have been the education governor.
This is a man, after all, who got his feet wet in politics by sponsoring an after-school initiative. During the campaign, when he was still wildly popular, he promised "to guarantee equal education for all children."
Instead, Schwarzenegger — whose four children attend private school — has cavalierly broken a promise on public school funding, embittered teachers, and offered next to nothing in the way of creative or sweeping solutions to the state's most critical challenge.
As I write, I don't know if Arnold's Proposition 74 — the proposal to extend public school teachers' probationary period — won the hearts of voters.
But I do know this: Even if it passed, it's not going to fix the schools.
What's the bigger challenge, after all, firing bad teachers, or attracting new ones and then making an honest commitment to monitor and continue training them once they're on the job?
"The governor vetoed a bill that would have continued professional development for teachers," said state schools boss Jack O'Connell, who has no trouble hiding his disappointment with Schwarzenegger's empty rhetoric on education. "The achievement gap in California is real, and I just think if we're going to continue to be a strong economic engine in the world, that's linked to our ability to close that gap."
Last month came news that despite some improvements in test scores, California's fourth- and eighth-graders rank close to rock-bottom in the nation in math and reading.
So what does Arnold do? Throws a lame education initiative on the ballot all the while hoping voters wouldn't notice that another of his initiatives, the budget-capping Prop. 76, would eviscerate school funding.
California schools have bigger challenges than any state when you consider the huge low-income population and the number of students still learning English. Despite these challenges, California's national rank in spending per pupil is somewhere between the middle of the pack and the bottom, depending on who's counting and what formula is used.
Yes, I know you can't throw money at the problem. But neither can you expect excellence when mediocrity is all you're willing to pay for, and even at that, the governor tries to raid the public school kitty.
I met recently with Rob Reiner, whose preschool initiative would guarantee a head start for every California child and do more than anything Schwarzenegger has on the table. If he does nothing else, the governor ought to get behind it.
Jeannie Oakes, a UCLA education professor, recalled a Schwarzenegger speech "that was amazing about what we can't let happen to California students." And then, under the guise of reform, he gave us the duplicitous distraction called Prop. 74.
"It will do nothing to solve the most serious problems in California schools," Oakes said. "It will do nothing about serious underfunding, low achievement, high dropout rates, and it won't even solve the teacher quality problem."
She wishes Schwarzenegger had united rather than alienated educators and led a discussion about what it might cost to achieve his own promise of equal education for every child. She wishes he had helped galvanize the efforts of grass-roots parent groups that are demanding accountability and resources in their children's schools.
Even if he was a committed cheapskate, Schwarzenegger could have used his bloated popularity two years ago to visit every school district in the state and tell parents an essential truth: If they don't get more involved in their children's education, they'll have themselves to blame for lousy report cards.
I've written in the past that for obvious social and economic reasons, parents have an obligation to learn English and encourage their children to do the same. That message doesn't mean much coming from a columnist who was born and raised in California, but it would have meant something from a gazillionaire governor who was born abroad.
"He could have been the head cheerleader, the parent organizer, the champion of low-income families," says Oakes.
Is it too hard to fire bad teachers?
Of course. The contract for United Teachers Los Angeles is 310 pages of protection.
"It takes too long and it's too expensive" to toss a bad apple, says Roy Romer, chief of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
But Arnold's measure wouldn't solve that problem, nor does it get us anywhere near an honest fix for California's lousy report card.
"The world is moving its talented jobs to India and China and other places because they have very good education," says Romer. "If you take a 50-year view of Los Angeles, you're going to have to build the economy on schools and knowledge, and we are not doing it. The political and frankly the social cadre have not recognized that you can't educate only the elite and compete in the world. You have to educate everybody."
At the very least, the governor could have demanded payback from his corporate pals. With all the favors they've gotten from Schwarzenegger, he could have tapped them for more help with charters, corporate sponsorship of schools, donations of equipment and brainpower.
In short, he could have restored California's role as the national model for public schools.
Is it too late?
I don't know. But what better focus for the rest of his time in office?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:42 pm
B, touche.
Mikey...you're right, while the problems of education run much deeper than teacher tenure, teacher tenure is part of the problem and a significant one at that.
But it is also true that the problems of education are much deeper than funding levels. Four decades are increasingly more funding and recognition that the highest spending districts are also failing districts have taught this lesson to all but the Democrats and their unions.
Many of the problems in education can be laid at the feet of teachers. Their blind and fierce loyalty to the unions is one reason. Their cowardice in outting bad teachers is another. Teachers generally weight salary increases and tenure protection more than they do educational outcome and this is proven by the fact that their unions have successfully resisted performance management systems and resisted tenure modifications.
Unions represent the teachers, hence, the teachers are rightfully held accountable when unions prevent improvement in educational outcomes.
It's the same reason that Delphi and Northwest employees have only themselves to blame for their respective companies seeking bankruptcy protection.
Mikey...you're right, while the problems of education run much deeper than teacher tenure, teacher tenure is part of the problem and a significant one at that.
But it is also true that the problems of education are much deeper than funding levels. Four decades are increasingly more funding and recognition that the highest spending districts are also failing districts have taught this lesson to all but the Democrats and their unions.
Many of the problems in education can be laid at the feet of teachers. Their blind and fierce loyalty to the unions is one reason. Their cowardice in outting bad teachers is another. Teachers generally weight salary increases and tenure protection more than they do educational outcome and this is proven by the fact that their unions have successfully resisted performance management systems and resisted tenure modifications.
Unions represent the teachers, hence, the teachers are rightfully held accountable when unions prevent improvement in educational outcomes.
It's the same reason that Delphi and Northwest employees have only themselves to blame for their respective companies seeking bankruptcy protection.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:49 pm
The question was whether or not the founders would approve of ballot propositions. In that regard, there is incontrovertible evidence that the founders believed the mechanics of governance were best left to the most educated and informed of the citizenry, who would be elected to represent the people's interests. To have a public referendum on matters that amount to nothing more than legislation by other means flies in the face of everything the founders stood for.mvscal wrote:Needless to say that has absolutely nothing to do with the state constitutions that do permit ballot measures.
Any person daring to call himself a student of American history should know that.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:50 pm
The initiative process in CA is broken and needs, not to be discarded, but to be fixed. It's not democracy but government by $$$$$ and special interests.BSmack wrote:Our founding fathers would be appalled to see ballot propositions.DrDetroit wrote:So you disagree with our Founding Fathers?
Why do you hate democracy?
The Electoral College out front should have told you that.
Only if you have enough money can you get on the ballot, and the moneyed special interests, on both sides, have found that if you have enough money you're guaranteed a place on the ballot and have the opportunity through false and misleading advertising to fool the public.
I see the results of this election as a sign that the people of California are finally catching on and saying "enough!!". Is it too much to hope that they will start demanding that their representatives in Suckramento actually get some useful work done? I think it was a mistake for Ahnold to force this expensive ($80 million?) special election at a time when the state budget is in a mess. A lot of people resented the fact that they were forced to go through this in an off year. If he had waited until the regular election next year some of his initiatives might even have passed.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:50 pm
lets see it then.there is incontrovertible evidence that the founders believed the mechanics of governance were best left to the most educated and informed of the citizenry, who would be elected to represent the people's interests.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:05 pm
Who cares what the founding fathers thought on this issue, anyway? Didn't they also think that only affluent white men should vote?
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:33 pm
Read the Federalist Papers and get back to us. I don't have time to regurgitate basic Constitutional history.DrDetroit wrote:lets see it then.there is incontrovertible evidence that the founders believed the mechanics of governance were best left to the most educated and informed of the citizenry, who would be elected to represent the people's interests.
SYNW,
Good point. Which is why the dittotards on this board who usualy lean on what they percieve to have been the founders wishes are flopping around like pilot whales on a beach trying to sort out this quandary.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:19 pm
I don't recall the Federalist Papers discussing restricting governmental representation to the most educated and informed. So....lets see your evidence of that.
Well?
My point re: the Founding Fathers was broader than the proposition/initiative issue. The Founding Fathers certainly did not expect the Constitution to remain unchanged. Hence, the ballot proposal/initiative mechanism is just one way to effect governmental change.
Well?
My point re: the Founding Fathers was broader than the proposition/initiative issue. The Founding Fathers certainly did not expect the Constitution to remain unchanged. Hence, the ballot proposal/initiative mechanism is just one way to effect governmental change.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:24 pm
If you don't remember the Federalist Papers, then go back and re-read them yourself. This is basic American Constitutional history we are talking about, not something obscure like the West Coast Offense.DrDetroit wrote:I don't recall the Federalist Papers discussing restricting governmental representation to the most educated and informed. So....lets see your evidence of that.
Well?
My point re: the Founding Fathers was broader than the proposition/initiative issue. The Founding Fathers certainly did not expect the Constitution to remain unchanged. Hence, the ballot proposal/initiative mechanism is just one way to effect governmental change.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:29 pm
But as citizens of the indivisual state in question, the majority would much prefer a decision by elected representatives in the form of a legislature or a constitutional convention.mvscal wrote:They would certainly approve of the individual states deciding for themselves if they want to allow ballot initiatives.BSmack wrote:The question was whether or not the founders would approve of ballot propositions.
EOS
You do recall that the concepts of recall and referendum were not seen in American political life until the late 1800's. There's a reason for that. It's because our founding fathers HATED those ideas.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:50 pm
No one has answered my questions as to why it is relevant what the Founding Fathers would think on this issue.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:59 pm
I see it as proof that:Mikey wrote:I see the results of this election as a sign that the people of California are finally catching on and saying "enough!!".BSmack wrote:Our founding fathers would be appalled to see ballot propositions.DrDetroit wrote:So you disagree with our Founding Fathers?
Why do you hate democracy?
The Electoral College out front should have told you that.
1. People are stupid.
2. If you run enough negative ads for a long enough period of time, you can program people to believe anything.
How dumb does the average Californian look right now, when they overwhelmingly elected Schwarzeneggar in the recall election, who ran as a reform candidate, and then they shoot down all of his reform measures by huge margins?
Clearly. By the people voting down Prop 77, they endorsed the actions of our retarded legislature and gave them a green light to keep right on doing whatever the fuck they want.Mikey wrote:Is it too much to hope that they will start demanding that their representatives in Suckramento actually get some useful work done?
I think it was a mistake for Ahnold to force this expensive ($80 million?) special election at a time when the state budget is in a mess.
I agree in a vacuum that it seems like a bad call, except that the main reason for it is because we are financially fucked if we don't stop the deficit spending. The special election was done primarily because of Prop 76, so we wouldn't have to borrow another $10 or $20 billion next year.
That's a stupid reason to vote "no"...especially on something like Prop 77. Did you know that every major newspaper, even the ultra-lib San Francisco Chronicle supported a "Yes" vote on 77? Even liberal PACs and pro higher taxes groups came out in favor of this, along with essentially every GOP group. This was a no-brainer.Mikey wrote:A lot of people resented the fact that they were forced to go through this in an off year. If he had waited until the regular election next year some of his initiatives might even have passed.
The ad campaign run against Prop 77 was one of the worst I've ever seen. Three retired judges, who are picked from a bi-partisan pool by voters, recommend new district boundaries, which are then approved or shot down by voters, right? There was even a provision that said that no more than two of the judges could come from one party. Yet the ads said, the three judges that Schwarzeneggar picked would be accountable to no one, or essentially saying that Schwarzeneggar's homies would draw up the districts. Just complete bullshit.
Also, word out of Sacramento is that they are considering having Attorney General Bill Lockyear impeached for adding "Education Spending Limits" added to the ballot above Prop 76 in an attempt to sway voters to vote "No." Talk about biased language...
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:13 pm
It is relevant only in that "Founders Intent" is something the Alito's of the world use to justify their draconian views. Which is why our resident dittochimps are hard at work trying to justify ballot initiatives in colonial America when it is clear to anyone with half a brain that initiatives, plebiscites or recalls would have been abhorred as examples of mob rule by our founding fathers.See You Next Wednesday wrote:No one has answered my questions as to why it is relevant what the Founding Fathers would think on this issue.