Hey, Democrats!!
One of the biggest things that separate most Southern liberals and Democrats from the opposition is our unwavering commitment to public education. While anti-government forces believe we’d be better off without public schools altogether, we on this side of the aisle always talk about how committed we are to excellence in public education. One of our core values is that education is a shared expense, and that public education is one of the most cost-effective places to allocate our shared resources.
But we’re supposed to be good stewards of those public resources we allocate. We have to get them from the appropriate places and make sure that those dollars are effective when spent, and give taxpayers and property owners an appropriate return on their considerable investment. Otherwise, the already endangered support for public education will erode from the folks who put up the lion’s share of the money.
The movement towards private schools and vouchers and white – flight and home-schooling may have their roots firmly planted in the anti-integration soil of the past 40 years. But as of today that movement has gained most of its ground not from the inherent racism of its birth - as many liberal pundits insinuate - but at the fact that our public schools, especially across the South, are failing to return the proper investment to taxpayers, property owners and parents whose children should be attending those schools. In the case of the anti-public schools movement, what began as an ideological response has morphed into a competency-based response. Ignoring this fact will continue the downward spiral and will lead to the eventual dismantling of the American Public Education system, one of the core institutions of American public society, and what could have and should have been one of the crowning achievements of American liberalism.
As I say often, competency will trump ideology, even if all you hear about is the ideology. People will vote with their feet. One day, we wake up, and the whole public education system is de-funded because another, more competent but more exclusive system will have been built while we argued about who is to blame.
Maybe that is just a natural evolution of public institutions, but I think it would be a step backwards. If it ends up being a better education system, however, so be it. But it deserves our best fight - our best efforts - in defending our vision of American public education so that the choice is not poorly made. The final directional choice should be between two of the best educational models as opposed to grasping at whatever is better, safer, or more effective than our crumbling public institutions.
The future of the Democratic Party, Southern Liberalism, and the American way of life will factor heavily on how education is dealt with in the coming years, as an event horizon is approaching. The choice between public education v. private education will come to a head sooner than many of us on this side of the aisle are willing to think, and the results of that choice will have effects long into the future.
That choice will be made in New Orleans.
Seventeen months post-deluge, the public schools run by the locals and the state are still unable to accept all students and provide basic services for them at the schools. While some problems were to be expected in recovering from the scale of the disasters faced by this area, this is an American city, part of an American state and a piece of this Union. Last time I checked, the United States of America was the greatest, richest, most powerful and most can-do nation ever to exist on the face of this Earth, and the roughly 50% of us who consider ourselves left of center have a core value that says ‘we are all in this together’ and ‘what happens to the least of us happens to the best of us.’
Right now, in addition to those students who already went to parochial school, the Archdiocese of New Orleans has 1,500 public school kids in the system who had no space in the public schools,
and made a declaration recently that they are willing to add another 300 students to that number because the need has arisen. Yes, bless whoever made that decision, because when the need arises, there is no greater thing to see than someone or some group stepping up to the plate and saying ‘we got this.’
And, as a Southern liberal and a Democrat, I have no problem with the state legislature sending some cash the Archdiocese’s way to cover some of the expenses. Separation of Church and State be damned, there are several hundred kids who won’t go to school this year if such drastic measures aren’t brought to bear. Yes, I factor in a hierarchy of need into my political and policy thought: it is called common sense.
What chills me is the slow pace of the public schools to recover, and I wonder: with the resources already so slow in coming, with the work so overwhelming, will they ever? Us Democrats and Southern Liberals should see the importance of this recovery for what it is: the line in the sand, the referendum on public schools as a shared American value. Right now, our side is losing this fight in spectacular fashion.
Madame Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dean, we need that 101st Hour.
Democratic Congress So Far
Oh yeah, the really cool thing is, they haven't even been sworn in as the majority yet. Think the country was ready for a change?
So, we all know that, the day after the elections, Rumsfeld was out as Secretary of Defense, and hopefully the soon to be confirmed Mr. Gates is a conservative member of the reality based community, a huge step in the right direction for this country. As I've said before, I think this is going to be a very good thing.
Second, I submit a hearty Thank You to ultra-Northern Progressive Sen. Feingold, for announcing
that he will not run for President in 2008. I don't like Senators running for President, and this has nothing to do with their success rates. They have a huge responsibility to their posts in the legislature, and Presidential campaigns destroy their Senatorial credibility (IMHO). Also, Feingold as an almost undefeatable progressive Senator is far more valuable to the nation, even on issues where I disagree with him, in the legislature than mounting a distracting fight for the Presidential nomination.
Third, I'd rather Maryland Representative Hoyer become Majority leader than
Jack Murtha. Only part of this is that the dude is from Maryland, and that's almost considered a Southern state. But Rep. Murtha is not the dude I want to publicly speak for the party from an actual position, because even when he makes good points, I don't like the way he makes them. I'm very tired of lightning rods filling every leadership role.
Fourth,
Pelosi is being awful shrewd, and is talking an excellent game so far. The right wing shrill machines will howl about how liberal she is all they want, if Americans see her holding out a hand to the other side to get stuff done, it is the shrill machines who will get egg on their faces. I hope she walks the walk she's talkin about.
This also sounds like a really smart divide and conquer plan, as the schism war between the really real conservatives and the big government Bushitistas has already opened up cracks. If the door to get legislation amended and passed remains open, especially with a Democratic focus primarily on effective government and Congressional oversight instead of partisan retribution for the past decade, some real work may get done - and quickly - without falling into the same holes of hackery that led to the Republican Congressional maturity issues (that consequently led to the GOP's electoral defeat last Tuesday). I think that's one thing the real conservatives and the variety of Democrats are really looking to achieve at this point.
This is some pretty cool stuff to hear about, and like I said up front, they haven't even been sworn in yet...
Wow. Talk about an immediate effect. Democrats take the the House just before midnight, and just after noon the next day,
Rumsfeld Resigns. They haven't even been sworn in, and already they're doing a better job!
Thank You
Rev. Nelson,
I know this might not be the best morning, but I would like to personally thank you for running for Congress this election. Because of you we had a choice that we wouldn't have had otherwise. Good folks like you, who stand up and run for office with all the mud and frustration and work that entails, win or lose, make Democracy work and keep this country the shining light to the world.
Again, thank you.
Patrick Armstrong
Get Out the Vote!
Dear friends,
My name is Ben Hubby; I'm a family practitioner in Savannah.
A group of us have formed to Get Out the Vote and elect
Jim Nelson to
Congress. We're looking for folks on the coast, in Brunswick and inland who
will work along side their neighbors to bring forth a large turn-out for Jim
in November. Contact me if you'd like to be a volunteer in the area where
you live or whether you'd like to join us in seeking others to expand our
network.
We applaud what you're doing on the coast to end the nightmare of the Bush
years and to get America back on track!
Ben Hubby
hubby@ix.netcom.com
Appeasement? Redux
My first post on "Appeasement?" can be found at
Hurricane Radio. Much debate has followed.
But we'll sum up: if you disagree with the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, you want to appease the terrorists. You hate America. You are morally confused like the anemic Western Democracies of the 1930's.
This is going to be the New Republican Offensive,
so get ready to hear it all the way to November. This week has been the absolute roll out of this new narrative, with all their star players on the field hammering away.
Well, I'm sick of it, because
this is just more talk, talk.Bush said last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
(emphasis mine)
It sure is nice of them to tell us what we're thinking. It sure is nice of them to put words in our mouths. Are you sick of it? I am.
Fred Kaplan at
Slate seems to be sick of it, too, and goes on to
answer the questions Rumsfeld asked in his infamous speech:1. "With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?"
Well, it depends which "vicious extremists" he's talking about. If he's talking about the leaders of al-Qaida, no, probably not. But, even here, it's a mistake to presume that there are only two choices—appeasement or war.
...
2. "Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?"
Again, it depends what he means by "terrorists." If he's talking about al-Qaida, who is advocating such a thing? If he's talking about, say, Syria or Iran, which are state sponsors of terrorism, it's sheer folly not to negotiate with them, at least on some issues.
...
Rumsfeld properly lionizes Winston Churchill and, implicitly, Franklin D. Roosevelt for recognizing the threat from Nazi Germany at a time when many dismissed his warnings. But it's a good thing that the Western leaders of World War II weren't as dogmatic as their wannabe-emulators of today. Otherwise, they might not have formed an alliance with the Soviet Union (out of a refusal to negotiate with evil Communists), and they might have therefore lost the war.
...
3. "Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply 'law-enforcement' problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?"
Once more, Rumsfeld loads the deck. Nobody claims that today's threats are "simply" matters of law enforcement. Obviously, terrorists are not "simply" criminals, and dealing with them requires a mix of approaches, including military. That said, techniques of law enforcement (including police surveillance, border patrol, and international intelligence sharing) have recently broken up more terrorist plots than any military operation.
...
4. "And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America—not the enemy—is the real source of the world's trouble?"
This is another red herring. Few Americans, and virtually no contenders in American politics, hold this view. However, a lot of people in other countries—including countries that are, or should be, our allies—do hold this view.
Read the whole article for the full effect, this is just the highlight reel (emphasis on Rumsfeld's questions).
Finally (for this post at least)
Blue in Redsville points us to Kieth Olbermann's response on MSNBC. Well worth the view. For the record, even Tucker Carlson said he was offended by Rumsfeld's words last night on MSNBC.
The longer
the ceasefire holds, the better. Even if we can't disarm Hezbollah right away, we are working towards that goal. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm sure the Israelis of Haifa and the Lebanese in Beirut would rather deal with political ramifications than to have missiles and bombs raining on their heads.
Swiftboating Jim Nelson
That's right Coastal Empire, our own group of
swiftboaters has arrived, and they are working like crazy to discredit
Rev. Jim Nelson.They know we have a chance to get rid of Kingston in November, and they are throwing everything they have at us now. Two months of fight is on the way, but we knew this wouldn't be easy when we started the long road back in March.
Welcome to the blogosphere, gentlemen.
