God, i feel so badly for Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton

[loudnclear]

These are the only candidates who have been true to their positions and carry the positions that match closest to the Dem grassroots base and yet the media and even people here on this board will not give them the respect and visibility they deserve. Instead we rush hysterically toward candidates who positions on the war and the economy are more identical to the Rethugs now in control. It's a sad state of affairs but I understand it: ABB

My greatest fear is that even after selling out souls Bush will prevail. Why shouldn't Independents and Repthug moderates stick with the devil that they know (Bush) if all the Dems have to offer is Bush-lite? The Dems are making the case for Nader...no wonder he is considering getting in the race. It's sad. Sharpton calls Bush and his cabal "liars" and backs it up with evidence that the media immediately begins to distort. The facts are simple: Rummy said, "we know where they are" and Bush said a host of things that were blatant lies...and is stilly lying.

What kind of a democracy or political system do we have when money and fear are the two main issues?

God help us all.

[vi5]

1. Because the bottom line cold hard truth is....

In order to be a succesful politician you need to be a GOOD politician. We can sit in our chairs at our computers with our friends and kvetch and moan and complain about how much we all hate politicians and business as usual. But when it comes down to it the large majority of people feel more comfortable putting someone in a political role if they are good at politics.

Dean, and Kucinich and Sharpton may make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but the fact is that if they can't win primaries (or in Sharpton's case ANY election) then as much as you don't want to admit it, that means that they more or less don't have the political capital or acumen that it takes to accurately gauge an electorate, figure out what they are looking for, and offer that.

It would be great if we lived in a utopian, pure democracy but we don't. So you either play the game as it is or don't play it at all. But none of us and none of these candidate should join the game but then complain when it doesn't bend to suit who they are or what they want.

I'm all for idealism but what is going on in this country now is too rough and too important for idealism, at least for me.

[AngryAmish]

2. Amen

Well said.

[DebJ]

5. There is a third choice; you only gave us two. But it takes time.

You said:
"So you either play the game as it is or don't play it at all."

I say we need to change the rules of the game. Think outside the box. Nothing in life gets changed by a reasonable man, who simply tries to work inside the box and conform to the world. All real change is instituted by the unreasonable man, who insists on conforming the world to himself, instead of conforming himself to the world.
This election is about CHANGE. We need even more change than this election is going to give us, obviously. Change takes time. I don't like the rules, I don't like the box, and I want to work to change it.
I'm tired of being disenfranchised.

[spooky3]

8. One way to make change is to get a Democrat in power first

(and we need to get more in the Congress). Even if that Democrat may not share all of the positions you might like, if s/he agrees with you 75% of the time, that is a helluva lot better than 5% of the time, which is probably about the rate of agreement for * and most of us right now. Democrats who want to win know that they have to be palatable to the majority. That is the defining characteristic of democracy. Once they get into the office they can gradually lead people into the light.

[vi5]

10. It's your right to try and change the game....

...and it's my right to feel that to worry about whether the game is fair at this crucial juncture in time is akin to jousting windmills. There is too much at stake and personally I will take incremental change to move us away from the direction we are now going in rather than complaining about the game being unfair.

Do what you feel is right. That's your right and your privelage. It is also my right and privelage then to view such thinking at this important time as being just as detrimental anything else that we face.

[IrateCitizen]

19. You act as if those two choices are mutually exclusive...

The truth is that they are not. One can campaign for and support the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party while at the same time working to change the rules of the game. In fact, I would argue that such an approach is ESSENTIAL if we ever want to realize positive change in our society.

IMHO, those who are putting all of their marbles right now in the basket of a Democratic Presidency are setting themselves (and the rest of us) up for a long-term failure. Why? Because while this is one of those few exercises of a national election in which the outcome is significant in reference to the overall direction of the country, the truth remains that the keys to the egregious abuse of power committed over the past 3+ years lie not in one man or office -- but the centers of power that exist within the national structure and consciousness.

It is only by altering those centers of power that REAL, LASTING change will come about. That is why it is of the utmost importance to focus on BOTH of these goals at the same time, rather than let one overwhelm us to the point of exclusion of the other.

[library_max]

23. Okay,

let's look at the record of real, lasting change. Let's look at two examples: the New Deal and the Great Society (I'd be tempted to look at the abolition of slavery, but since that involved a civil war it might not be the best model).

What "centers of power" altered to bring about the New Deal and the Great Society? Wasn't it that we got sympathetic leaders (FDR, LBJ) into office and then they listened to a call for change from the people?

Where's the historic model for your "centers of power" argument?

[IrateCitizen]

31. The historical model is just as you have stated it

In both instances, the state has been used as the primary means to affect change. Much of the agitation that led to the New Deal did not come directly from the state, but rather came from emerging power centers that existed outside of the state (i.e. the labor movement), and came to actually present a check on the state's power.

While FDR is rightly lauded for embracing the emerging Keynesian economic theory and starting the New Deal, in which the government assumes the role of the "employer of last resort" -- there have been many negative consequences of this unfolding of events. First and foremost, it helped to solidify the Federal Government as an even more significant locus of power, giving it powers that did not exist previously. Secondly, it actually participated to the co-opting of the power centers that had previously existed outside of the state apparatus (once again, the labor movement), which may have helped precipitate their eventual decline. Just look at the difference in focus between the labor movement of 80 years ago (organizing and agitating) as opposed to the labor movement of today (direct involvement in politics). And look at the way in which the right wing has been using state power to undo the successes of the New Deal over the past 25 years.

Much of the same could be said of the Great Society. While I believe that, if it were not for Vietnam, LBJ may have gone down as one of our greatest Presidents due to his political courage in supporting civil rights and his committment to fighting poverty, the WAY in which the problem was attacked was yet another example of ceding of power to the state in order to fix our problems. The backlash against that centralization of power has been severe -- as exemplified by the charicature of "welfare queens" by right wing ideologues. Furthermore, once friendly elements were out of power, and the right wing assumed power, it was far too easy to undo the programs of the Great Society and perhaps make life even worse for many of the poorer segments of society in the process.

The problem you are displaying by unconditionally supporting such an approach is not a result of coming up with the wrong answers, but rather from asking the wrong questions. I recognize this because it was a pattern with me up until the last couple of years, when I finally began to challenge what I had previously perceived as unyielding truths and found that they were really little more than conditioned impressions. This then, led me to make entirely new postulates about the world around me, that led in turn to the adoption of beliefs and theories that might be seen as unreasonable to those who are operating under the postulates that I used to believe to be true.

This is an instance in which it is important, I believe, to look at the model of change presented by Gandhi. See, Gandhi, in his campaign to end British rule, did not believe that problems could be solved by merely changing out one ruler (English) for another (Indian) -- even if it was done with a re-writing of the Constitution or any other large-scale changes. Gandhi believed that eventual self-rule of India would come about only through Indian self-effort. Any attempt to impose a new Constitution and ruler on India without that effort would, in the end, be utterly meaningless. He said that his nonviolent revolution was not a seizure of power, but "a transformation of relationships resulting in a peaceful transfer of power."

Do you see the distinction now? I am not denying that change can come about through a new leader. But for such change to be real and lasting, it must be truly based in a "transformation of relationships" out of which comes a true transformation of power.

ON EDIT: Did you read Zinn's A People's History of the United States yet? I remember you saying that you were going to read it some time back, but that you were dubious of my take on it that it proposed that real change flows from the people rather than from the leaders. This was one of the works that shattered many of the bases from which I previously operated, as discussed above.

[library_max]

38. Yes, I've read Zinn.

It wasn't easy. His work is useful as a corrective to traditional American history, but it is extremely tendentious and one-sided when considered by itself.

"Your take" seems to me to mark a history of failure. You make failures out of the two biggest progressive pushes-forward in this country because they were implemented by the government. But that's how good things happen in this country.

Gandhi was trying to expel a foreign rulership. That has nothing to do with anything that's going on in the United States. Has India become some kind of political utopia while I wasn't looking? What has happened there that's so much better than the New Deal and the Great Society? It may have been better in theory, if you like the theory, but has it been better in practice?

It seems to me that you're trying to make bricks without straw. You want to reject what works, albeit imperfectly, for what has never worked.

[IrateCitizen]

41. Can we discuss this without mischaracterization?

First off, your take on Zinn is a reasonable one. Perhaps even further along on the scale is Chomsky, with whom I disagree on many of his conclusions, but find his study of power relationships and propaganda to be indispensible (probably because it's more in line with his field of expertise, linguistics). But from an historical standpoint, neither should be considered as a stand-alone -- no historical work should, as it is all subject to personal bias, as Zinn readily acknowledges in his introduction.

"Your take" seems to me to mark a history of failure. You make failures out of the two biggest progressive pushes-forward in this country because they were implemented by the government.

You're reading into my answer things I never wrote. My problem with these pushes forward is the ease with which they are being dismantled using the same instrument that brought them: the centralized state. Asking questions as to how we can better accomplish our shared goals, rather than simply accepting one method as the only viable method available, is hardly what I would call denouncing previous reforms as "failures". Rather, it is an honest attempt to learn from past mistakes -- or would you rather continue to make the same mistakes over and over again?

Gandhi was trying to expel a foreign rulership. That has nothing to do with anything that's going on in the United States. Has India become some kind of political utopia while I wasn't looking? What has happened there that's so much better than the New Deal and the Great Society? It may have been better in theory, if you like the theory, but has it been better in practice?

Then let's look at an American who was perhaps Gandhi's greatest "disciple" -- Martin Luther King, Jr. Was he trying to dispel a foreign power? Has the South become some kind of political or racial utopia? Was there valuable change made? What were King's primary methods by which to pursue change? Did he seek to empower the centralized federal government to achieve his aims? Did he seek to empower people through the carrying-out of the civil rights campaign to achieve its aims THEMSELVES?

Or, if we want to continue along the lessons of Gandhi, it was brought up in a thread yesterday in response to someone who doubted any lasting legacy of Gandhi, that there have been six nonviolent revolutions in the world since Gandhi's death. Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela and Vachlav Havel all employed nonviolent resistance to achieve the aims of removing an oppressive regime. But their overall aims went far beyond simply replacing the figurehead, but revolutionizing the centers of power within the society as a whole, and making them more accessible (and thereby answerable to) the people.

It seems to me that you're trying to make bricks without straw. You want to reject what works, albeit imperfectly, for what has never worked.

And if you want to engage in metaphors, it seems to me that you're continuing to make bricks with straw without considering the possibility of concrete, simply because it is a new idea. My aim in this dialogue with you is not to try and one-up you or anything of the sort. Rather, I just want you to ask some questions of things that you have taken for granted as basic truths -- but may be anything but that. After all, if Einstein had never asked questions about what was perceived as basic truths in classical physics, he never would have come up with the theory of relativity -- a breakthrough that has allowed countless technological advances over the past 50+ years. All this tells us is that questions, not answers, are the true source of imagination. Why not dare to imagine -- what do you have to lose?

[library_max]

43. Why not dare to imagine?

Because of the harm it does. We are busying ourselves imagining utopia while our opponents are operating in the real world of real politics. And, while I respect your "why not both?" approach, DU is full of idealistic people looking for an excuse to reject reality and embrace their fantasy that they have only to hold their breath and stamp their feet to have national politics change to suit their views. It does no good to encourage the "no difference between Bush and Gore/Kerry" crowd. It helps Bush into office, and I hope I don't have to explain the downside there.

King's movement was a fine thing, but it all would have come to nothing without Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, and other interventions of the federal government. It doesn't matter if that's what he was aiming at - that is what worked.

There is no historical model for what you're talking about that doesn't involve a revolution of some kind, an overthrowing of an imposed government. We don't have an imposed government, so it doesn't apply here.

[IrateCitizen]

46. Some of us aren't trying to imagine "utopia"...

But rather to imagine new (and perhaps better) solutions to age-old problems. If continuing along with the same-old, stale ideologies suits you, then by all means do it. Just don't expect me to be a willing participant in a losing battle.

And, while I respect your "why not both?" approach, DU is full of idealistic people looking for an excuse to reject reality and embrace their fantasy that they have only to hold their breath and stamp their feet to have national politics change to suit their views.

I appreciate the fact that you respect my view, but that's not what I'm aiming for. While there is certainly the idealistic contingent of which you speak, there is another, equally dangerous contingent that believes that switching out one leader for another will solve our problems, and they can go back to sitting on their laurels faithfully believing that the Democratic Party will make everything right again. The "why not both?" approach isn't a flippant one -- it's meant to dispel the "either/or" approach that so many seem to take from BOTH sides of the argument, and persuade them to realize the value in both approaches being taken at once, and in concert (rather than competition) with each other.

It does no good to encourage the "no difference between Bush and Gore/Kerry" crowd. It helps Bush into office, and I hope I don't have to explain the downside there.

And what good does it do to denigrate them endlessly? Are you hoping to shout them into silence? Are you aiming to convince them? Neither will happen through the leveling of scorn. However, if instead of criticism you get them to ask the QUESTIONS that need to be asked, you might just be able to convince a few of them to come to be your ally (a more natural fit) than your "enemy".

King's movement was a fine thing, but it all would have come to nothing without Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, and other interventions of the federal government. It doesn't matter if that's what he was aiming at - that is what worked.

It may not be the either/or that you suggest. Did it ever occur to you that those things occurred because of a shift in power relationships, as well? While the watershed moment may have been the court decision or legislation, the actual power behind it wasn't necessarily the federal government in these instances, but rather the power of people who forced the federal government to take such a stance, or at least created the political climate in which people within the government felt free to make these decisions? I'm not insisting you come to the same point of view as I have -- I'm just saying that it might serve you well to ask yourself these kinds of questions and really consider and dwell on them.

There is no historical model for what you're talking about that doesn't involve a revolution of some kind, an overthrowing of an imposed government. We don't have an imposed government, so it doesn't apply here.

I differ on this point. I think we most certainly do have an imposed government here. I think if you were to ask the average person out there if they think that their voice matters, their answer would be "no". A system in which the people feel they have no input or control is, by its very nature, an imposed system. Just as, going back to King, segregation in the South was an imposed system. Corporate personhood is an imposed system. Militarism is an imposed system. The only reason that many of these aspects of US society are not perceived as "imposed" is because they are reinforced primarily through propaganda means, rather than brute force. Since the propaganda does its job, any uses of force are minimal in scale and unreported to the mainstream.

[library_max]

47. So, constitutional democracy is an imposed system.

With what do you propose to replace it? Because all of your examples replaced one form of government with another, because the form in place was hateful to the vast majority of those governed. Do you really think that's the case in the U.S.?

You talk about "solving our problems" as if it all had to be done at once. History teaches us that beneficial change is almost always incremental. Lots of Debs supporters wondered what good it could possibly do to get FDR into the White House. For one thing, it produced the Warren court, which decided Brown.

Regarding people taking the politically destructive path, it may not convince them to tell them they're wrong, but it certainly doesn't help to tell them they're right. These aren't "either/or" people. "I don't care about this election, I'm in it for the long term," is the latest excuse for destructive purism. But every election won by the right moves us to the right. Watch what Bush & co. are doing - they are trying to create the Reich That Will Last A Thousand Years. So there is the potential for harm when you go telling people that elections don't matter all that much.

[IrateCitizen]

48. Apples and oranges

So, constitutional democracy is an imposed system.

No, it isn't. But it has been proven in many instances (our current state of affairs included) that constitutional democracy alone does not contain the restraints on rulers that are adequate for stopping the slide toward totalitarianism/authoritarianism.

With what do you propose to replace it? Because all of your examples replaced one form of government with another, because the form in place was hateful to the vast majority of those governed. Do you really think that's the case in the U.S.?

I don't propose to "replace" it. I propose that people work together to change it, to mold it, to fix it. I don't see the current form in place in the US as being "hateful" -- but it is incredibly disempowering to the average citizen. When people begin to believe that they don't have any real say, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I also believe that, although the Constitution must be considered a "living document" -- if its framers were alive today they would be largely appalled at the results.

You talk about "solving our problems" as if it all had to be done at once. History teaches us that beneficial change is almost always incremental. Lots of Debs supporters wondered what good it could possibly do to get FDR into the White House. For one thing, it produced the Warren court, which decided Brown.

First off, please point out to me where I am proposing that all our problems should or CAN be solved at once. I asked you before if we could discuss this without mischaracterization, I really don't want to keep asking the same question over and over again.

Secondly, your point is well-taken, and it is a lesson that radicals should take to heart about what good can come about from electoral politics. Likewise, I am asking those proponents of electoral politics (like yourself) to look at lessons that can be learned of the pitfalls of depending on the government too much for change.

And as a historical correction -- while several members of the Warren Court were nominated by FDR and Truman, Warren himself was a nominee of Eisenhower.

Regarding people taking the politically destructive path, it may not convince them to tell them they're wrong, but it certainly doesn't help to tell them they're right.

Once again, I did not at any time propose telling them that they're right. I proposed asking them questions, and trying to get them to think more deeply about what they are doing. Criticism rarely opens doors -- in fact, it often only gets people to dig their heels in deeper.

"I don't care about this election, I'm in it for the long term," is the latest excuse for destructive purism. But every election won by the right moves us to the right.

But what if every election won by the center/left STILL ends up moving us to the right, if at a slower pace? This is the reason for keeping one foot in each box.

Watch what Bush & co. are doing - they are trying to create the Reich That Will Last A Thousand Years. So there is the potential for harm when you go telling people that elections don't matter all that much.

I'm well aware of the greater vision of the Bush Administration, and it's one that must be stopped. I hope you're not inferring that I'm telling people that elections don't matter, because that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying that we should be careful not to overstate their effects as being all-encompassing.

[vi5]

32. I can agree with that....

I'm sorry if I was reading from these posts that not supporting the democratic nominee was what was being referred to.

I am all for change. I personally am not a centrist or a moderate. I am a liberal who would love to see a pure hardcore liberal elected. I have just learned after many years that this is very unlikely, and that I personally speaking am not willing to sacrifice incremental change by holding out for a complete overhaul of the system.

[IrateCitizen]

34. You can start by ceasing to endorse that false dichotomy

I realize the sincerity of your apology as stated above, and it is appreciated. But you also need to notice that you subconsciously go back to endorsing EXACTLY the same kind of false dichotomy for which you are apologizing.

I have just learned after many years that this is very unlikely, and that I personally speaking am not willing to sacrifice incremental change by holding out for a complete overhaul of the system.

While there are certainly plenty of folks here who DO call on others to reject any kind of short-term, incremental change in favor of an overhaul of the entire system (and I take exception with them, as well), the first step toward reconciliation is to stop characterizing the debate as this either/or choice. Don't look at it as "holding out for a complete overhaul" -- instead, why not see it as "continuing to work for an eventual overhaul while at the same time supporting positive incremental change where I can find it." In this sense, you are able to reach out to those who are disgusted with the system as it currently is -- and perhaps even convince them to keep one foot in each realm rather than feeling that they have to choose one or the other.

I can't tell you how many times I have been assailed by those on the left for "betraying my progressive ideals" for just saying that, although I'm a Kucinich supporter, I will enthusiastically pull the lever for whomever the nominee is come November. I say this not expecting some kind of great, lasting change from the way things are -- I say it because it is a positive change, even if it is only reducing the speed at which we race along toward our eventual destruction! But if the act of reducing that speed makes it easier, in the long run, to turn away from it -- then I'm all for it.

Thanks for recognizing value in what I'm trying to say. I just hope that there is something that can bring together all of the "pragmatists" and "idealists" -- and I believe that beginning to ask different questions rather than simply providing different answers may be the first step.

[vi5]

54. I think I'm just phrasing this really poorly...I think we agree....

I think the system constantly needs to be questioned and reevaluated and everything else you are advocating. And I consider myself an avid proponent of this "dual path" if you want to call it that.

I guess in "real life" most of the people I know who are supposedly on my side (meaning liberals) and who I disagree with are advocating an either/or solution. In short they want it all and they want it now and if they don't get it all and if they don't get it now then they will try and subvert the system or the (what I will call) greater good.

And I guess so many times on here I read many posts which remind me of them and the frustration that I feel in dealing with them so at times perhaps I make assumptions that I shouldn't in that perhaps that person isn't advocating and either/or situation.

[edzontar]

11. In other words: Stop complaing and vote for the lesser of two

Evils because you have no choice.


Am I getting it all down?

[LWolf]

13. You're getting it loud and clear.

I wouldn't feel so violated in November, voting for the lesser of two evils, if I felt like the primary process was clean and fair. Like democrats actually listened to, researched, questioned, and pondered all candidates equally, and then based their vote on the issues our country needs to face, and who has the best plan to deal with them.

Funny, I don't feel like this is happening.

[vi5]

14. No....do whatever the heck you want......

...honestly, I tired of this "lesser of two evils" garbage in 2000. I don't have time for it now. If you or anyone else on the "left" or in the democratic party can't see that there are massive differences between John Kerry and Bush then I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince or coddle you and say "there, there". I tried that in 2000 and spent more energy trying to convince people on the left to vote for Gore over Nader and it didn't do me or the country a good god damned bit of good.

I should have spent that time and that precious wasted breath trying to convince the many more swing voters and indepenents I knew of who in hindsight and now approaching another election, are going to me more easily convinced and open minded about the democratic candidate.

So honestly, vote for who you want. But if you identify yourself as a democrat and can't see the differences between bush and ALL of our candidates then I know right off the bat that nothing I do is going to change your righteous mind. So godspeed to you. Have fun, enjoy your vote, enjoy your complaining, do what you want. Nobody is telling you not to complain. Complain all you want. Just don't expect a lot of people to want to listen to it.

[stickdog]

17. Reality Check.

Edwards can't win because of the 35 million limit.

Kerry can't win period.

Dean played the 1976 Reagan card tonight.

The day Dean gets out of the race is day we start working for 2008.

[Skip Intro]

3. You said it

The invasion of Iraq is the one that really gets me.

Almost all here at DU were outraged at the lies of bush forcing that murderous, unnecessary invasion upon us and the world. It was the dominant topic here for months. Now, its hardly talked about. I've been told it doesn't matter.

Its a tragedy on many levels, our abandonment of principles on this issue. When we should be speaking for those who have died for bush's lies, when we should be holding the murderers to account for their actions, when we should see justice done - we will abdicate our moral duty instead.

I'm assuming I'll vote for the Dem candidate in Nov. But I will really have to reassess which political party best represents my views afterward.

[Atlant]

6. How could the Iraqi INvasion matter?

> Almost all here at DU were outraged at the lies of bush forcing that
> murderous, unnecessary invasion upon us and the world. It was the
> dominant topic here for months. Now, its hardly talked about. I've
> been told it doesn't matter.

How could the Iraqi Invasion matter? Our standard-bearer supported
the invasion, so of course the entire Iraqi Invasion must now "not
matter" (and soon, it won't "ever have mattered").

Orwell just missed by 20 years.

Atlant

[Davis_X_Machina]

9. And there are others that 'don't matter' now...

NCLB -- a good idea, just needs more funding.
Cutting taxes -- a good idea, just needs different targeting
AWOL -- service in VN shouldn't be an issue, we all served in different ways.

We just signed up for a "who looks more like a President" contest, not a presidential campaign, and the opposition owns the world's largest props cupboard, the Federal goverment.

Smart move....

[LWolf]

12. NCLB is not a good idea.

It doesn't just need funding. It needs all references to testing, basing funding on testing, and punishing taken out of it. And then, if it is still breathing, those funds could be pumped into the parts that would actually benefit students.

Personally, I would prefer to put the entire thing in a fire pit, do a celebration dance around it while it dissipates in smoke and ash, and then start over.

But that's just one of those teachers talking. And everyone knows everything is all our fault.

[seaglass]

20. What is the problem with testing?

Is there something wrong with expecting that all students have a standard base of knowledge when they graduate from High School?

Are you against SATs also?

[Davis_X_Machina]

21. Educate yourself...

...the testing is a small part of NCLB, it's only the lever used to accomplish its real ends.

[seaglass]

24. I'll excuse your rudeness, the post I was responding to

specifically addressed testing. If you have something to say - say it.

[library_max]

28. SATs are overrated.

It's been proved many times that the SATs are a very poor predictor of college success - class rank is much better.

But the SATs are only one test. NCLB is based on annual testing, and, unlike the SATs, the schools are held responsible if the students don't perform well enough. This means that the schools must teach to the test - it's their ass if they don't. And the test is every year. Think of how much instruction time is lost to teaching the test, instead of reading, writing, math, geography, etc. And no, teaching the test isn't the same as teaching the subject matter - if you've ever had any SAT test prep, you'll know what I'm talking about. And test-taking is not a life skill.

Also, it means that schools are held responsible for things that are not their fault, such as the socioeconomic status of their students or the percentage of special education students they have. The law punishes schools for having at-risk students by taking the few non-at-risk students (and their parents) away. It's a system designed to produce dumping-ground schools, virtual prisons where nothing can be taught so that the "good" students can go to "good" schools.

[IrateCitizen]

37. The sky must be falling, because I completely agree with you!

I come from a family of teachers -- my parents are both retired teachers, so is my uncle, his wife (my aunt) is still teaching, and my wife is a teacher. Adding to the insanity, I'm taking classes to work toward my teaching certificate. ;-)

My aunt is seeing the effects of the standardized testing for NCLB up close. She says that they now concentrate the overwhelming majority of their efforts on the "borderline" students come testing time, so that they can meet their numbers. Did I mention that my aunt teaches in an economically-depressed, rural area in which the overwhelming majority of students receive free breakfast and lunch, and that her school has been targeted as a "borderline" school?

The end result is that the achievers don't get the attention they need to excel, and those in the worst need of help get written off. The end product is utter mediocrity on a downward sliding scale.

How on earth is this good for our kids? Was it ever supposed to be? Or perhaps you're completely right in your "dumping ground" assessment?

[library_max]

40. If you liked that, you'll love this.

I personally believe that elements of the right, if not the right in toto, hate public education and are trying to destroy it by any means necessary. Public school is where kids learn to share, where they learn that all races and ethnicities are equally deserving of respect, where they learn that science is fact and religion is opinion, where they learn multiple viewpoints on American history - in short, where they learn a lot of things that a lot of parents don't EVER want their children to learn. There's that plus a strain of anti-intellectualism caused, I believe, by what I call the gym class effect (I couldn't compete in gym class, and therefore learned to profoundly hate sports and physical activity in general), which makes many undereducated conservatives hostile to any kind of education whatsoever.

I was a high school teacher before I became a librarian - couldn't cut it (classroom discipline not a strength). Please ask your aunt for me if the time they spend teaching the borderline students is spent teaching them real skills and knowledge or just spent teaching them how to take the test. It isn't just the higher-functioning students who are getting shortchanged, and in fact the shift of some more attention to the at-risk types is, in my opinion, one of the few bright points in NCLB, except that it all boils down to useless test-prep anyway.

[IrateCitizen]

42. Oh, you'll love this even more...

My mother's best friend taught in Texas, and had nothing nice to say about Bush's TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) system. In short, she said that teaching to the test is ALL they did -- and that when it came down to a choice between buying new textbooks or a computer program to aid in test prep, it was always the latter.

I've heard similar things from my aunt, as well. It's all about teaching to the test, creating a bunch of automatons perfectly suited for the new service economy.

Regarding the right's disdain for public education, there was an excellent article in The Progressive a short while back on this subject. You might find it quite interesting.
http://www.progressive.org/jan04/miner0104.html

[library_max]

45. Thanks. /eom

[LWolf]

55. Good question.

Nothing's wrong with testing. And everything is wrong with it. I'm ambivalent about SATs. Because of what I know about testing itself.

I had to pass a lot of tests of all sorts to get through grade school and high school, finish my degree and get my clear teaching credential. Tests have their place.

It's not like we've never taken or given tests. It's THESE tests.

How much do you know about psychological measurement? About norm-referenced tests vs criterion referenced tests? About reliability and validity? About statistics?

First I can tell you that they have twisted and warped the scores themselves beyond mathematical integrity. I've yet to find any administrator, superintendent, or anyone else in my 25,000 + student district who can answer my questions about the test scores and what has been done with/to them. The closest I got: "Don't worry about it. Those test gurus know what they are doing."

I can also tell you that I've listened in while a group of phds...in psychological measurement and statistics, all argued over what these test scores really represent. They couldn't come to an agreement, except that they don't measure student learning.

These test scores are rankings. They have no relationship to how much of a particular content a student learned. They are rankings. They show the student's place in comparison to other people his/her age across the country. And no matter how poorly, or how well, students across the country are doing, there will always be a highest, a lowest, a middle, and everything in between when it comes to these scores. You can't move everybody above average. There is no average without half the people above and half the people below. Fourth grade statistics here in CA. So any legislation based on where you rank is already corrupt. With this system, half of our children will always be left behind, because there is always a group below "average."

Then there are the formulas they apply to the individual student's scores on individual subtests to come up with the API, AYP, etc.; a number that measures nothing real. When I pointed this out to my boss, he replied, "You're right. But since everyone else has to use the same formula, and come up with the same theoretical scores, we can still compare them." Read, "As long as we're all mathmatically and ethically corrupt together, it works."

Here's something we've known about these tests since before they became weapons of public instruction destruction with the birth of the standards and accountability movement more than a decade ago. What do they most reliably measure? Parent ed and income level. That's right. The closest correlation to the scores and something real is not the child's academic "level," but his/her parent's education and income level. So of course, schools in wealthier communities score better than schools in poor communities. Ask any individual school who has been sanctioned...what subgroup failed to make the assigned growth? It will either be the free and reduced lunch kids or the non-english speakers. Who take the test in English like everyone else. So do the special ed kids. At their grade level.

Then there is the interesting connection between the bush admin and the testing companies and the text publishers on the "approved" list for adoption/use by schools who are "at risk" or have "failed."

You can search DU, both active and archived posts in Health, Ed, etc., for much more detail. It's been posted.

The bottom line is that these tests don't measure what you think they do. We are burning way to much ed funding on them, and on the demands that go with them. And guess what? More testing doesn't result in more learning, any more than weighing a cow more frequently makes it gain weight faster. Having standards posted on your walls where children can recite them when the standardistos come calling to document your accountability doesn't mean the kids are learning them, either. The focus on testing doesn't help teaching. Threatening, shaming, and punishing us does not make our kids suddenly learn more. Our administrators demand that we teach, not only "to" the test, but nothing but the test.

And if you haven't looked that far, please be aware that this isn't happening just to high school kids. It starts in grade school. In some places, it starts in kindergarten. And now they want to start more testing of head start preschool kids. Before you know it, a baby will have to pass a F****** standardized test before she's allowed to leave the womb.

There is nothing wrong with expecting that "all students have a standard base of knowledge when they graduate from High School."

There are plenty of ways to do that without the current testing frenzy. As a matter of fact, I did that way back in 1977 by passing all my required coursework to earn my high school diploma. Of course, I had to take exams to pass the courses. I had to take exams to prove subject matter competency to pass every college course, too. And myriad exams to prove subject matter competency before my credential was issued. None of those exams were used to punish my teacher or my school, or tear down public ed if I didn't pass.

The real result here is a skyrocketing increase in dropouts. Dropouts who will feed the need for cheap labor.

I really don't need legislation to tell me to test my students on subject matter before passing them. And I don't need tests to rule my profession or my students with fear and loathing, either.

[vision]

39. Thats what I don't get

The all he looks "presidental" WTF does that mean? I mean seriously does that mean that because he is the tallest? If so than lets get Charles Barkley, he would beat them all. Kerry is certainly not the best looking of the candidates, so that can not be it. So how is "Presidental" defined?

Here is the paintings of past Presidents http://www.americanpresidents.org/gallery/

What do they have in common that can be described as "Presidental"?
1) the are all older white men
2) the mainly have on dark suits
3) ????

How is Kerry like the others that he can be defined as "looking Presidental"?

I don't see it. Any of the candidates IMO are "Presidental" when compared to the Chimp.

[library_max]

29. Unless you mean Bush,

our standard bearer did NOT support the invasion of Iraq. Or is the truth among the things that don't matter any more?

[Atlant]

35. Then why did he vote for it? (NT)

[library_max]

44. Because he didn't.

The IWR does not and did not equal the invasion of Iraq. And at the time, Kerry went on record saying that his intention was to assist them president in negotiating sanctions and inspections through the UN, with any use of force only as a highly undesirable last resort.

[bobthedrummer]

36. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton have both called Bush a liar.

All Dems should be howling this 24/7.

Bush is a liar that took US to war while lying about the "threat" to US from Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

All this blood is on him.

[kiahzero]

4. Yup, that's me!

I'm rushing hysterically towards candidates I don't really support... the media has brainwashed me.

Tell me... why is it against the rules to bash individual posters, if its fair game to insult large segments of the posters at once?

[union_maid]

7. Don't feel bad for them. Just be grateful that they were there

Well, maybe feel bad for Dean, but he's still going to look back on this and know that he made an important contribution. Those three are helping to shape the debate. Their presence has helped to bring certain issues to the forefront of the public consciousness. They've gained personally, too. All three are now national figures and can take that and build on it if they wish.

[loudnclear]

25. Thanks for your uplifiting point of view.

You are right. Even the Sharpton haters deep down inside know that he has done much to help point out Bush's evil.

[nickn777]

15. right...

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC was interviewed on Imus this morning and said that he can't recall Rumsfeld ever saying he 'knew' where WMD were. But I am almost positive that Rummy said they were in Tikrit and in certain areas around Baghdad. Hard to believe that the chief Pentagon correspondent would miss this.

[loudnclear]

26. Al was correct on this. go back and check the record.

They have all their whores out trying to cast doubt about all the facts that our candidates have brought up in the debates but all people have to do is to go check the record.

[RetroLounge]

16. Must Follow Script

so it is written, so it shall be...

[JHKaplan]

18. huge difference

There is a huge difference between bush and Kerry. Come on, you know this. He was not my first choice by far, but he has some good points, and I think he can beat the idiot. And please don't feel sympathy for Sharpton! He was backed by and supervised by Republican operatives and was a stalker against Dean when Dean was the frontrunner.

[loudnclear]

27. Yes, I know there is a difference between Bush and Kerry...one is Presiden

now and I will vote for Kerry if he is our candidate. I just merely point out that what the media and some of us did to Dean will come back to haunt us. As for Al beating up on Dean it wasn't nearly as bad as the media and folks here want to make it. Dean came back a much better candidate after that confrontation and nothing Al said was untrue. It certainly wasn't as bad as Gephart and Kerry supporters paying for that ad that showed Dean with Osama...as we now know.

[bobthedrummer]

22. A corrupt system

that sells the candidate with the mainstream media and sound bytes.

But you already knew that.

ABB is painful but necessary IMHO-I took the pledge too.

OTOH look at the record turnouts so far, we are in the process of taking our country back.

[CWebster]

30. nothing like the simple, sad truth..

[ChiefJoseph]

33. I have no patience...

...for this line of reasoning. Kerry and Edwards might not be the most ideologically pure candidates, but good grief, they are both such dramatic improvements over Bush that I'll be happy as a pig in shit if either of them get elected, although I'm personally rooting for Edwards.

[NNN0LHI]

49. I honestly don't think god has anything to do with this

This has a lot more with winning in politics. Kind of like making sausage. May not be pretty to watch being made, but it tastes damn good when you eat some.

Don

[littlejoe]

50. I feel sorry for us, having to put up with people like Dean,

Kucinich and Sharpton as so-called serious presidential candidates.

[loudnclear]

51. Yeah, especially with REAL candidate like Bush on the other side.

Please, feel sorry for us...ain't it a shame?

[littlejoe]

52. That's right. We deserved fewer and better candidates.

[IrateCitizen]

53. What you mean "we", white man?

I, for one, am perfectly happy with a vigorous debate on a wide-range of issues, allowing us to sort out intraparty squabbles to the maximum degree prior to the main thrust of the campaign.

[Skip Intro]

56. Damned demcoracy!

:eyes:

[Zynx]

57. Uhhh...Dean was a serious candidate.

[littlejoe]

58. Dean owes us all an apology.