Winter, spring, summer or fall,
All you've got to do is call.
Lord, I'll be there, yes I will.
You've got a friend. - James Taylor, 'You've Got a Friend'
Was it an interview, or a benefit concert - 'Dem-Aid'? Matt Lauer and Tim Russert got a one-day headstart this morning on the Today show's traditional Friday music-on-the-mall. In the course of their conversation, Matt and Time went karaoke on us, the duo belting out a heartfelt rendition of 'You've Got a Friend' to their buddies in the Democratic party.
Yesterday, President Bush announced that 14 heavyweight terrorists, including presumed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had been transfered to Guantanamo. President Bush is now calling on Congress to promptly pass legislation establishing war tribunals for the trial of the accused terrorists. The news creates a terrible bind for Democrats, forced to agree with the president on an element of the war on terror. The depth of the Dems' dilemman was evidenced by a clip Today played of Nancy Pelosi having to admit, if grudgingly, that she was "very pleased" by the news of the transfer and impending trials.
Before even a note was sounded, Today had set the stage with the graphic on display here, writing off the president's move as "the politics of terror." And once he chimed in, Lauer lost no time in playing the president's move as sheer political calculation.
Lauer: "Let's talk about the timing of this. The Supreme Court handed the administration a defeat on this subject back in June, so several months ago. The president any time in the last couple of months could have made this announcement. Why did he wait until now?"
Russert was happy to sing along: "Or he could have done it on November 8th, the day after the mid-term elections. But the political and legislative calendar is front and center there's no doubt about it. This was important politically for the president because it focuses the conversation on September 11th and not Iraq. And you heard Kelly, the Congress must deal with this issue. And so for the next three weeks the president will be saying where is the bill? Where is the bill? Where are my war tribunals?"
Lauer even 'helpfully' sung a line of defense for the Dems: "If you are a Member of Congress, you will say you could have given us months to discuss this. You've now given us three weeks!"
Matt invited us to hum along with those poor Dems, put in the terrible position of doing something right on terror: "So put yourself in the position of a Democratic lawmaker today, Tim [which shouldn't be too hard for the former senior aide to Mario Cuomo]. If that woman or that man stands up and says I am opposed to this, I don't want to discuss this, I want more time, they're going to be seen or painted by the administration and Republicans as weak on national security."
Right on key, Tim crooned back: "Precisely. And that's the attempt over the next three weeks."
If the sky above the Dems should turn dark and full of clouds, and that old north wind should begin to blow, the MSM will be there. Ain't it good to know that you've got a friend?
#1
"Precisely. And that's the attempt over the next three weeks."
...Hey, life's a bit*h, Congresscritters. If you'd have done your jobs in the first place instead of trying at all costs to avoid responsibility for ANYTHING, you wouldn't be stuck between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea right now.
And BTW, all the while Russert and Lauer are moaning about the bad spot their Dhimmi allies are stuck in, that (sarcasm/ON)idiot incompetent who can't tie his own laces and chew gum/walk at the same time (sarcasm/OFF)ha just handed them their asses...again.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/07/2006 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
MSNBC's Chris Matthews invited on New York gubernatorial Green Party candidate Malachy McCourt, to state his case but when the brother of Angela's Ashes author, Frank McCourt, suggested George W. Bush be tried for war crimes and executed, the Hardball host didn't even flinch. The following exchange occurred on last night's Hardball:
Matthews: "Look, let me ask you this. Where are you on capital punishment?"
Malachy McCourt: "Capital punishment? I think that if, if I've got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I get him to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment. Otherwise, I am against it. Spitzer, who is the other guy running here, he is for capital punishment for those who kill policemen. Well, my son is a cop in New York, and if somebody killed my son, and it wouldn't do me any good or give me any satisfaction to sit there in some death house in Sing Sing and watch them put some other person to death because they killed my son. That would not cheer me up one bit, Chris."
Matthews, smiling: "You just sound like a liberal Democrat, Malachy."
Not only did Matthews not challenge Malachy's heinous remark he actually smiled after his rant. In fact Matthews seemed charmed by McCourt as he ended the segment: "Well, I had to tell you, I hereby make my stand, I like you already. Malachy McCourt, Green Party candidate."
#1
And PLEASE GOD don't forget to mention that you saw this on MY show on MSNBC! I'm BEGGING you! And I must be important because I had a GREEN candidate actually want to come on the show and we all know how influential THEY are!
Posted by: Chris Matthews ||
09/07/2006 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hey Chris, who worked your contract deal, the teachers union?
#3
In Chris's defense (a) he worked for Tip O'Neal so anyone that thinks he's nopartisan isn't paying attention (b) the idiot being interviewed was talking about legal procedings (by a foreign government) that found Bush guilty not about assassination or anything. (c) Chris went nuts about the time the Iraq war started and he was on CNBC and MSNBC at the same time so what do you expect?
#5
Merry Fitzmas Chris! Asshole. Look on Ebay or Costco online - they may have credibility to sell by the 55 gallon barrel. You need it. Losing to QVC's "gallstones of the famous", but at least you're ahead of Olbermann...so you've got that going for you, which is nice
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/07/2006 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?
The leading terrorist group, al-Qaeda, is fighting us on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Iran and North Korea are threatening nuclear war. And yet many Americans, including some Congressional Democrats, denounce President Bush, and in so doing, weaken our countrys ability to resist Islamic fascism. One Congressional Democrat, John Conyers of Michigan, announced his intention to impeach the President when Republicans lose control of both Houses of Congress.
There is something terribly wrong with people seeking to demean and weaken the president in wartime, thereby strengthening our countrys enemies. As a result of the language and tactics of those opposed to our presence in Iraq, our enemies have been emboldened, believing the American public to be sharply divided on the war, and in fact at war with itself. To other countries, Americans appear pitted against one another not in an election, but in a verbal bloodbath, convincing the world we are impotenta paper tiger.
The tyrannical forces in Iran led by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, make clear that if they can destroy us, they will. Ahmadinejad has said about the United States, Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?...you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved Ahmadinejad has also stated his goal of destroying the state of Israel several times, saying, Israel must be wiped off the map.
If a sovereign nation makes such threats, do those who are threatened have to wait until the missiles are in the air before taking action? Or may threatened states defend themselves with preemptive action?
The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran stop developing nuclear technology leading to the creation of a nuclear bomb. Iran has refused, notwithstanding threatened sanctions. Irans conventional missiles can already reach Europe and Israel. Must Israel wait until the world knows exactly when Irans bomb has been built? Experts estimate that it may take years or as little as six months. No one knows with certainty when the cobra will be able to strike. Iran has lied to the U.N. about its nuclear development efforts before. Is there anyone who believes it is not prepared to lie in the future or is currently lying?
Many of those who attack the president, hoping to make him ineffective and bring him down, are opposed to our alliance with Israel. You can verify that and the signs of anti-Semitism by looking at the banners and listening to the anti-Israel invective in the speeches in the street demonstrations and marches against the war in Iraq and President Bush. Regrettably, many of those marchers are blind to the terrorism that faces the Western civilization, sympathize with it, or fear it less than they despise the governmental leaders of the U.S.
Recently, Scotland Yard arrested 25 British-born Muslims allegedly in the midst of plotting to blow up over the Atlantic Ocean ten U.S.-bound airplanes filled with approximately 4,000 people. The British authorities have indicted 14 and continue with its investigation of 11 more, having released several suspects. In a recent poll of British Muslims by NOP Research, broadcast by British Channel 4-TV on August 7, 45 percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.
I know of no comparable poll taken in the American Muslim community, which numbers 2 to 6 million. There are certainly enough Muslims here to poll. Are we afraid to learn the results?
When the government engages in racial and ethnic profiling at our airports, there is an outcry among those who call themselves civil libertarians. They seek to shame us, citing the actions taken in World War II against Japanese-American citizens. The difference is that no Japanese-American engaged in a single hostile act against the United States in World War II.
We know today that the 19 terrorists who brought the World Trade Center towers down were Muslims. We know that Muslims planned and implemented the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole in Yemen and the army barracks in Saudi Arabia. So when our counterintelligence investigates alleged terrorist groups, shouldnt suspected Muslim groups be first on the list?
At airports, shouldnt those who speak Arabic or are identified by trained inspectors by clothing, actions, appearance or information as Muslims receive special attention? Most will undoubtedly be innocent, and understandably affronted and inconvenienced. Nevertheless, it is the rational measure to take when we are at war.
Protecting the nation does not mean silence in the face of criminality on the part of the U.S. military forces or improper government action. It means exercising restraint, responsibility, good faith and respect for other people. It means not seeking political gain at the expense of the nations security in wartime. Knowing what to do can be likened to Mr. Justice Potter Stewarts statement in a pornography case. Said he, I know it when I see it. We should not say My country right or wrong, as Commander Stephen Decatur did, but we should preserve our countrys values while not jeopardizing its very existence.
#1
Because liberals keep their head in the sand and don't want to offend anyone since that might lead to confrontation and they can't have that since they are spineless anyway. They only stand up for things that the opposition can't hurt them.
#2
There are not enough liberals that see the light. Hopefully the number will grow. I don't expect them to become conservative, or republican, but it would be nice if they didn't blame the US for the worlds problems.
So far Lieberman, Zell Miller, Ed Koch, and Christopher Hitchens come to mind ans libs that at least have their head on straight that we are at war and aren't afraid to stand by their guns.
#5
"Because you're mealy-mouthing the message (Hint, in 1940 Britain was not at war with the Luftwaffe)"
No, that is not the reason. Our awkwardness at naming the enemy forthrightly and bluntly is certainly making the job more difficult; but it does not answer the question Koch raises: "Why do so many Americans refuse to face the fact that our country is at war with international terrorism?"
The reason so many Americans refuse to face the fact that we are at war, is because the Democratic Party has devoted nearly all its efforts the last five years, using every resource at its disposal, to first undermining Americans' support for Bush's conduct of the war, and then the notion that we are (or should be) waging war against this menace at all.
The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Roosevelt, Truman, JFK or even LBJ. Democrats don't "do" national defense anymore, it's been bred out of them. The only politics they know anymore is the politics of parasitism, and they've honed it to a fine art.
This war is a distraction from the only game they're good at. They simply want to drop it, and get back to the business of pimping for parasites.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/07/2006 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#7
DD - I think you besmirch parasites the world over. They have a place in nature
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/07/2006 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I know of no comparable poll taken in the American Muslim community, which numbers 2 to 6 million. There are certainly enough Muslims here to poll. Are we afraid to learn the results?
Ouch. Koch certainly doesn't expect to have a political career anymore. Hell, he sounds like Charles Johnson...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/07/2006 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
Why do Americans do so badly on international educational comparisons and yet support an advanced economy? With about 12 million students, the nation's 1,200 community colleges help answer this riddle.
Conclusion paragraph moved to the top so you don't have to read all the interesting details, the way I learned to write at that large American corporation: But the American learning system partially explains how a society of certified dummies consistently outperforms the test scores. Workers and companies develop new skills as the economy evolves. The knowledge that is favored (specialized and geared to specific jobs) often doesn't show up on international comparisons that involve general reading and math skills. As early as the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans are addicted to practical, not abstract, knowledge. That's still true.
Now all the background and supporting details, for those who want to know more: At this back-to-school moment, the riddle is worth pondering. Those dismal comparisons aren't new. In 1970, tests of high school seniors in seven industrial countries found that Americans ranked last in math and science. Today's young Americans sometimes do well on these international tests, but U.S. rankings drop as students get older. Here's a 2003 study of 15-year-olds in 39 countries: In math, 23 countries did better; in science, 18. Or consider a 2003 study of adults 16 to 65 in six advanced nations: Americans ranked fifth in both literacy and math.
In trying to explain the riddle, let me offer a distinction between the U.S. school system and the American learning system.
The school system is what most people think of as "education." It consists of 125,000 elementary and high schools and 2,500 four-year colleges and universities. It has strengths (major research universities) and weaknesses -- notably, lax standards. One reason that U.S. students rank low globally is that many don't work hard. In 2002, 56 percent of high school sophomores did less than an hour of homework a night.
The American learning system is more complex. It's mostly post-high school and, aside from traditional colleges and universities, includes the following: community colleges; for-profit institutes and colleges; adult extension courses; online and computer-based courses; formal and informal job training; self-help books. To take a well-known example: The for-profit University of Phoenix started in 1976 to offer workers a chance to finish their college degrees. Now it has about 300,000 students (half taking online courses and half attending classes in 163 U.S. locations). The average starting age: 34.
The American learning system has, I think, two big virtues.
First, it provides second chances. It tries to teach people when they're motivated to learn -- which isn't always when they're in high school or starting college. People become motivated later for many reasons, including maturity, marriage, mortgages and crummy jobs. These people aren't shut out. They can mix work, school and training. A third of community college students are over 30. For those going to traditional colleges, there's huge flexibility to change and find a better fit. A fifth of those who start four-year colleges and get degrees finish at a different school, reports Clifford Adelman of the Education Department. Average completion time is five years; many take longer.
Second, it's job-oriented. Community colleges provide training for local firms and offer courses to satisfy market needs. Degrees in geographic information systems (the use of global positioning satellites) are new. There's been an explosion in master's degrees -- most of them work-oriented. From 1971 to 2004, MBAs are up 426 percent, public administration degrees, 262 percent, and health degrees, 743 percent. About a quarter of college graduates now get a master's. Many self-help books are for work -- say, "Excel for Dummies." There are about 150 million copies of the "For Dummies" series in print.
Up to a point, you can complain that this system is hugely wasteful. We're often teaching kids in college what they should have learned in high school -- and in graduate school what they might have learned in college. Some of the enthusiasm for more degrees is crass credentialism. Some trade schools prey cynically on students' hopes and spawn disappointment. But these legitimate objections miss the larger point: The American learning system accommodates people's ambitions and energies -- when they emerge -- and helps compensate for some of the defects of the school system.
In Charlotte, about 70 percent of the recent high school graduates at Central Piedmont Community College need remedial work in English or math. President Zeiss thinks his college often succeeds where high schools fail. Why? High school graduates "go out in the world and see they have no skills," he says. "They're more motivated." The mixing of older and younger students also helps; the older students are more serious and focused.
This fragmented and mostly unplanned learning system is a messy mix of government programs and private business. In some ways it compares favorably to other countries' more controlled governmental systems. Of course, that isn't an excuse for not trying to improve our schools. We would certainly be better off if more students performed better. Nor should it inspire complacency. "Other countries are picking up these models of community colleges and online learning," says Chester E. Finn Jr. of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a research group.
#1
TW go on an average US campus. Keep going until you get to Sciences part. Count how many of the faculty below 60 is what you call "Natural Born Americans".
#2
Thank you,TW. An informative and interesting article.
I have several "... For Dummies" computer books myself: they give a good first-level look at a subject, and the typeface is easy on the eyes. The Grad-level training I got helps me take the basics they present and elaborate on my own.
#3
A reformation of the educational system will be based on changing the educational environment to maximize education. The literally medieval system in use today has to change with the recognition that student time is critically short.
Optimally, and not beyond our current technology, students should be taught by individualized multimedia, not in classes. The very best instruction blocks can be recorded, then as the student watches them, he interacts with them, is reviewed and evaluated at his individual speed.
For example, on his primary screen, he gets a lesson on types of weather. On a side screen, the same lesson, but in another language that he learns concurrently with English. Every unusual or key word is shown on the screen, and he types it himself to help insure retention. The computer also reviews what it has just taught and tests him on what he just learned.
The lesson goes at his speed, reviews as he needs it, and can even digress if he clicks on a topic that interests him.
When his lesson is done, you *know* that he understands the material, and has absorbed much, much more useful information that would be possible by students in a classroom.
#4
Granted, my exposure to such things as Anonymoose proposes was at a more primitive level during my prime schooling years (how's that for a euphamism!), but I prefer learning from people. I easily master machine-presented information, but don't retain much once I've passed the unit exit exam. Different people learn differently, and one of the reasons modern primary and secondary school systems are so expensive is because the better ones at least work toward providing teaching for the variety of learning styles.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Winter, spring, summer or fall,
MSNBC's Chris Matthews invited on New York gubernatorial Green Party candidate Malachy McCourt, to state his case but when the brother of Angela's Ashes author, Frank McCourt, suggested George W. Bush be tried for war crimes and executed, the Hardball host didn't even flinch. The following exchange occurred on last night's Hardball: 
