Bolton
 

BTW, if the Dems filibuster, isn't a presidential appointment not subject to lifetime appointment even a better argument against this countermajoritarian strategy? Why not go nuclear over this, when the Dems don't even have the option to say "but this is for life". Bolton's out when Bush is out (effectively), so why shouldn't the President get his person now?

go see post 3985

It's true, Sidd. Hank's political philosophy is drawn in large part from the expressed opinions of 135 people in a website poll.

Kinda like those early days of the Internet, when neophytes like People magazine ran "Sexiest Celebrities" polls, didn't closely monitor the results, and found out later that their software had posted the winner -- a surprising write-in candidate, "Skippy, the ugly midget." Hank didn't come out of his room for about 2 weeks after that.

Mmmm, taxes
 

What does Rawlsian mean? Specifically in this context.

Heat and humidity are highly condusive to melting. Of the Wicked Witch of the West type, at least.

Mmmm, taxes
 

The idea that the estate tax applies only to those that have "made it". In other words, if one doesn't know ex ante whether one will get rich or not, one might well agree with everyone else that people who do get rich should give back a good chunk of it upon death.

Mmmm, taxes
 

I think that "back" may earn you an attack (not from me).

Good to see you coming over to the side of light and goodness.

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

http://us.news3.yimg.com/img.news.ya...80x264.jpg?v=2

Just look at these schnooks. To prove how mean it was for us to "desecrate" some dog-eared copy of their bible, they go out and desecrate our flag and kill 16 of their own in a major panties-in-a-bunch brouhaha. Feh. All over a "news" report in Newsweek about someone saying they heard someone say someone saw someone flush a copy of the bible down the toilet. Besides being kneejerk asses for not stopping to question how hard it'd be to flush a damn book down a toilet (especially with the crap kind of water pressure you'd be getting in these god forsaken shitholes), the "intellectual" ones (the Muslim Clerics who called for a holy war in response) should have at least known the reliability of the rag that reported the story. These fuckers should be burning copies of Newsweek, not the flag. And apologizing for the 16 senseless deaths their little nancy boy tantrums cost.

Heh
 

"Trigger happy"? From all accounts, this was the most peaceful that border area has been for years. I have friends down there who tell me they could walk outside in the evening again, after some bad years, and who wish the effort was an ongoing one.

(But, glad to see LM ordered its agents to avoid arrests for a bit now, so that there's no confirmation that the "xenophobes" were more effective than the gov.)

Really, spanks, leave the racism card to the experts. That's one trick we shouldn't envy.

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

Oops.

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

Whiff.

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

Get a whiff of this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156608,00.html

• Report: Iraq Aides Knew of Russian Oil Bribes
  Monday, May 16, 2005
  
  WASHINGTON — Russian leaders received millions of dollars in Iraqi oil allocations from top representatives in Saddam Hussein's former government in hopes of ending U.N. penalties against Iraq, Senate investigators were told.
  
  Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan, told investigators that the allocations were "compensation for support," according to a report released Monday by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigations subcommittee.
  
  Russia's (search) foreign ministry declined comment on the report. It said it would be "unethical to make any statements" until a U.N.-appointed commission investigating the Oil-for-Food program releases its third and likely final report this summer.
  
  The Senate investigators said their interviews and documents from the former Iraqi government add to evidence in previous probes linking Russian officials to abuses in the $64 billion U.N. program. It was designed to permit Saddam to sell some oil and use the proceeds to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian items.
  
  Among the officials implicated are Alexander Voloshin, former chief of staff to President Vladimir Putin, and ultranationalist Russian lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
  
  Mikhail Troyansky, deputy chief of Foreign Ministry's information department, said Russia has cooperated with the U.N. commission's investigation, which is led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

They have a security council veto. And a guy whose takes the position that the UN should be taken as a flawed institution is not fit to represent us there?

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

Not much risk in that, eh?

("We will not rest until we find out whatever it is we did.")

Monday Funnies
 

Bolton
 

Yeah, except for that whole "checks and balances" thing, the ability to toss a federal judge every time the President who appointed em is voted out or serves a second term is a great fucking.

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

I love this guy:

*****************************
Now according to some Islamic clerics, we’re [already] the soulless infidels that are summarily marked for execution. Even though we are all to be killed, we should still show respect to our executioners. Remember that we’re dealing with people who believe Newsweek. You know, “backwards.”

Can you imagine how the world would be making fun of the United States if we collectively took to the streets and killed each other because someone reportedly flushed a Bible down the toilet? I guess we’re considered more mature.

It’s politically incorrect but what else do you call people who routinely take to the streets when something in the world happens they disagree with? College students riot in some countries while ours have simple hissyfits when they’re told they may get into trouble for downloading songs in their dorm rooms. In fact, I can’t think of one thing our wussy kids would risk life and limb to protest, at least without free beer.

Bob Parks, Black & Right.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/parks/images/bpBanner.jpg

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

You post this when I have my Michigan State avatar on?

Why I (still) love Mark Steyn
 

Don't Forget To Flush!!
 

Although I agree with this guy, I am still looking forward to the day (which probably won't happen in my lifetime) when movies like the Last Temptation of Christ, or the Passion of the Christ do not cause demonstratoins. The people that want to see the movie do , and the people that don't - don't. The end of Whining - that will truly be an historic day.

Heh
 

You have friends that live on the border? What do they do for a living?

I don't understand this fear of illegal immigration. Is this really a problem that should be at the top of our agenda? Almost everyone I know benefits almost daily from illegal immigration (cheaper food prices etc). And why are the illegal immigrants so harmful or dangerous? What is the crisis? All prior "dangerous immigrations" turned out to be beneficial. Do you think the US is better off today because we limited Irish, Southern European or Asian immigration at one time? It just seems to me that the people that are so concerned about illegal immigration just don't like having Mexicans around.

Heh
 

1. Blue-collar labor perceives a problem. That's a political constituency.

2. Immigrants consume government services (although I recognize that the taxes they pay generally are greater than the cost of the services consumed).

3. Any child born in the United States is an american citizen.

Not saying these reasons are good or bad, just the source of some of the concern.

Heh
 

Perhaps you didn't hear about the 9/11 hijackers that walked across the border. They could just as easily come in from Mexico.

The fact that it wasn't true shouldn't keep us from patrolling our borders. Vigilantism in defense of liberty is no vice.

Heh
 

I'm in a very different part of the country (upstate New York), yet I not infrequently hear people blaming all sorts of things on cheap immigrant labor. I happen to think labor unions and union wages are a good thing, but how is letting immigrants come into the country and work here, under our laws and with our protections, including minimum wage, more threatening than having the same people making car parts in a Mexican plant without the benefit of our labor laws and shipping the car parts over the border?

In today's world, I also just don't get the opposition to immigration either, even though I come at it from the other side of the aisle from you. I think these are people who are either expressing their inner xenophobe or who are fighting economic battles of the last century instead of this one.

Heh
 

Split between managing their investments, farming, and writing. Strange question.

Partially, it's the feeling that we have laws and philosophies governing immigration, but there's been a unilateral de facto decision to ignore those laws, and no one's really sure why. We see that we can't get on a plane with a fingernail clipper, and I have to wait in line at the entry ports far longer than in the past, and yet the powers-that-be have turned a blind eye to border-running. If we are going to let it happen, then we should change the laws to reflect that. Unfortunately for that point of view, the rationale for making that change isn't going to survive the debate. As to, where's the harm, the harm comes from lots and lots more pressure on the entry job market ("jobs Americans won't do" - crap - more like "jobs Americans won't do for the wages that illegal immigrants will take"), huge econ pressures on the people in the states that end up taking them in, and a general pervading disrespect for the law - hell, Bush and Co ignore immigration law, so what's the big deal if I do a few lines? Vic Hansen has a good article this week, whose main point is, essentially, do your own damn dishes.

Yeah, that's it, I'm just a racist cracker. Ask me what languages I spoke as I grew up.

Heh
 

Hatian Creole and Jive?

Heh
 

The Jive is more recent.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

A Modest Proposal for Saving Our Schools


By Tom McClintock


The multi-million dollar campaign paid by starving teachers' unions has finally placed our sadly neglected schools at the center of the budget debate.

Across California, children are bringing home notes warning of dire consequences if Gov. Schwarzenegger's scorched earth budget is approved — a budget that slashes Proposition 98 public school spending from $42.2 billion this year all the way down to $44.7 billion next year. That should be proof enough that our math programs are suffering.

As a public school parent, I have given this crisis a great deal of thought and have a modest suggestion to help weather these dark days.

Maybe — as a temporary measure only — we should spend our school dollars on our schools. I realize that this is a radical departure from current practice, but desperate times require desperate measures.

The governor proposed spending $10,084 per student from all sources. Devoting all of this money to the classroom would require turning tens of thousands of school bureaucrats, consultants, advisers and specialists onto the streets with no means of support or marketable job skills, something that no enlightened social democracy should allow.

So I will begin by excluding from this discussion the entire budget of the state Department of Education, as well as the pension system, debt service, special education, child care, nutrition programs and adult education. I also propose setting aside $3 billion to pay an additional 30,000 school bureaucrats $100,000-per-year (roughly the population of Monterey) with the proviso that they stay away from the classroom and pay their own hotel bills at conferences.

This leaves a mere $6,937 per student, which, for the duration of the funding crisis, I propose devoting to the classroom.

To illustrate how we might scrape by at this subsistence level, let's use a hypothetical school of 180 students with only $1.2 million to get through the year.

We have all seen the pictures of filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs, peeling paint and crumbling plaster to which our children have been condemned. I propose that we rescue them from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Our school will need 4,800 square feet for five classrooms (the sixth class is gym). At $33 per foot, an annual lease will cost $158,400. This will provide executive washrooms, around-the-clock janitorial service, wall-to-wall carpeting, utilities and music in the elevators. We'll also need new desks to preserve the professional ambiance.

Next, we'll need to hire five teachers — but not just any teachers. I propose hiring only associate professors from the California State University at their level of pay. Since university professors generally assign more reading, we'll need 12 of the latest edition, hardcover books for each student at an average $75 per book, plus an extra $5 to have the student's name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.

Since our conventional gym classes haven't stemmed the childhood obesity epidemic, I propose replacing them with an annual membership at a private health club for $39.95 per month. This would provide our children with a trained and courteous staff of nutrition and fitness counselors, aerobics classes and the latest in cardiovascular training technology.

Finally, we'll hire an $80,000 administrator with a $40,000 secretary because — well, I don't know exactly why, but we always have.

Our bare-bones budget comes to this:

5 classrooms $158,400

150 desks @ $130 — $19,500

180 annual health club memberships @ $480 — $86,400

2,160 textbooks @ $80 $172,800

5 C.S.U. associate professors @ $67,093 — $335,465

1 administrator $80,000

1 secretary $40,000

24 percent faculty and staff benefits $109,312

Offices, expenses and insurance $30,000

TOTAL $1,031,877

This budget leaves a razor-thin reserve of just $216,703, or $1,204 per pupil, which can pay for necessities like paper, pencils, personal computers and extra-curricular travel. After all, what's the point of taking four years of French if you can't see Paris in the spring?

The school I have just described is the school we're paying for. Maybe it's time to ask why it's not the school we're getting.

Other, wiser, governors have made the prudent decision not to ask such embarrassing questions of the education-industrial complex because it makes them very angry. Apparently the unions believe that with enough of a beating, Gov. Schwarzenegger will see things the same way. Perhaps. But there's an old saying that you can't fill a broken bucket by pouring more water into it.

Maybe it's time to fix the bucket.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

I love it when Republicans try math.

Of course, if you decide that you don't want a 35:1 teacher/student ratio the numbers change quickly. Likewise, this sounds like high-school, so you may want a lab (more per square foot and more square footage per student), you may want a library, you may even want to have the ability to gather all your students in one place (say, an auditorium), you may want a few other activites to go on in the building (say, an art studio space).

It's amazing what you can do to costs if you assume away a good half of the building and cut your teaching staff by another 50%.

These kids aren't going to get taught French or go to Paris. They're going to be warehoused until they can make french fries. And no team sports, either (because fields are too expensive), but we'll have 'em doing knee bends like there's no tomorrow. Because they'll need to reach under the sink to get the dishwashing soap.

(By the way, if I haven't been clear before, I'd be happy to dramatically cut admins and do some radical reshaping of schools -- but not like this. My goal would be to start with a 15:1 or better student/teacher ratio and figure out what we had to do to get there).

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

180 students. 5 teachers = 36 students per teacher.

Did we read the same essay? Did you miss the sarcasm? We shouldn't have to rent anything because the school districts already own the schools.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

THIRTY - SIX students per teacher. I'm sorry!

Yes, all the sarcasm is easy and cheap. A republican staple. This is like the business plans I get from entrepreneurs, where they just assume away until they have a billion dollar business, on paper, in five years.

Try this -- assume you want a 15:1 student teacher ratio and build from the bottom up. Factor in everything you need, including construction costs amortized via debt. It's not so easy.

I could poke holes in every number he proposes, but there's not the point. The big one is class size, and that's the one that most impacts education. (By the way, can you find any private schools that offer a high school education at $7,000 that you would recommend -- and they don't have those pesky unions).

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

Not gonna work as long as we leave the unfunded fed mandates in there.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

Why the opposition to cutting the bearacracy?

And as an aside, I did just fine in a public school with 35+ per teacher.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

I love cutting beaurocracy in schools. I personally think we should redefine teachers roles to include most of the tasks administrators currently do - this is, indeed, what most private schools do. They also use teacher's skills outside their main area of expertise, by having them coach on the side, for example. All good things to do.

But, students learn best with a low student/teacher ratio. Where did you have a 35:1 student/teacher ratio? Remember, you count all the teachers in areas like art, music and language in calculating the ratio -- so the class size is usually about 1.2 to 1.25 times the ratio.

Solving the budget problems by warehousing kids in huge classes is the gist of McClintock's numbers -- even if his rhetoric is focused on the administrators.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

Does that 35+ factor in the sizes of the classes that were special ed? Because they are averaging 36 students per teacher, which means that for every class you have with only 20 students per teacher, you need to have another that is 52 students per teacher -- or two classes of 44 students per teacher, etc.

With all these No Child Left Behind things, targeted funding, reporting requirements, etc. you need a bureacracy just to keep up with the compliance functions. Also costing money: reporting to the school board and/or parents on why there are or are not team sports. Funding litigation, settlements and awards for the many lawsuits parents bring because Johnny wasn't allowed to be on the team/Johnny was pressured to be on a team.

But in a perfect world, sure, no bureacracy. No gov't. Information costs don't exist. Whatever.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

At least we can fire all the people in the district finance office -- McClintock's taken care of all the budgetting issues, and if any new problems come up, I'm sure he'll wave his wand.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

LAUSD baby. I'm counting the ratio by the number of students in each of my classes.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

Their special ed classes were 36 students per teacher? Christ, no wonder the schools suck.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

I don't hear anyone in favor of bureaucracy. But I also don't hear any solutions that sound like good ways to cut it. What do those bureaucrats do? If bilmore is saying that they're required by federal law, then you can't just cut it. If locally elected school boards naturally tend to self-serving inefficiency, then we need a more robust solution.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

Lucky for you those posh private schools don't have to deal with that problem.

California Schools don't have enough money?
 

I don't know about all schools, but I'm very familiar with LA, having gone to them and having a mother that has taught in them for 30+ years. With LA, the main problem in sheer size. I think one way to start would be to break up the large districts and return more control and accountability to the locals.