Karen wrote:
>No, Harry, it doesn't strike me that Bush has been successful, not in
>Texas nor on matters of legislative substance now. Except for ramming
>through the overly optimistic Bush tax cut, the Education package he
>gloried in is being soft-pedaled if not derided already.
I thought what I said would produce a reaction. I don't know much about
Bush's education package. I don't think that education is a Federal matter
anyway. However, whomsoever handles it, the results are not good now.
As you know, half the students who enter the University of California
campuses need remedial reading. Yet, these are presumably the cream of the
Californian crop.
The educational establishment put on a test of California's new Exit Exam
(required to graduate). Only about half passed English, while about three
quarters failed math.
They have since discovered "programming errors" and the figures have
improved. As it wouldn't look good for most, or many, kids to fail
graduation from high school - I would expect a certain dumbing down when
the system in instituted in a couple of years.
You will notice that I am discussing education, while you discuss Bush.
You will recall that while he may not have done much in Texas, he was
re-elected for a second term as Governor - I believe by a majority of
landslide proportions - a triumph that was repeated in the Presidential
race. (Both Clinton and Gore lost their states to Bush, which might
indicate something.)
>The Patriot Bill was driven by
>adrenalin and needs heavy editing. Bush has 9/11 and fear going for him, a
>good PR machine in the shape of a seal, a name and bankroll that makes way
>for him like it did for Ted Kennedy, he likes to straddle the fence like any
>negotiator, and takes credit where it wasn't his to take like the worst of
>them (ie. Texas health care).
I thought "win-win" was a good result of negotiation. I am sure he acts
like all politicians, but why single out Bush. However, there are the Texas
results, which may mean something.
>We can be certain, however, that he never,
>ever signed the execution notice for any innocent criminal in Texas.
Every single person for up for Texas execution was innocent. But all Bush
could do was rubber stamp the court decision. He had only one executive
power with regard to executions. He could delay one for 30 days - then the
execution would proceed as scheduled.
No matter, this is just part of the broad sheet propaganda that swept
across the country during and after the election. It's OK - it's just
politics, where truth is a casual first casualty.
>As much as I applaud your use of prose and logic, many Americans felt as if
>"we wuz robbed" in November 2000, learning suddenly that a system we assumed
>worked didn't really, or at least is geographically-challenged, upsetting
>the notion that elections took place like Swiss clockwork and that perhaps
>that lousy micromanager Jimmy Carter needed to supervise elections in Miami
Jimmy is a nice man, but was a lousy president. Elections are manipulated
by everyone if they can. Cook County - Chicago - is an American political
joke. (The fervent Democrat lady who wanted to be buried in Chicago when
she died - so she could continue voting Democrat.)
During the last election, the Demos got a friendly judge to keep open the
polls for another three hours, so they could rustle up some more Democratic
votes, while the Republicans were watching television, thinking the
election day was over. There are no doubt many other similar illegalities
and swindles that are fruit of fanatical politics.
Personally, I ran into a nasty one. An old lady called after the election
because she was worried that Bush would end social security and she would
have to find work. Apparently, a Democratic speaker had visited the old
folks home and told them this. I'm sure they all voted Democratic.
Incidentally, Bush is to be congratulated for bringing the matter up. Also,
for giving younger citizens a chance to get off the hook. I believe that
when social security began there were some 30-40 workers for every retiree.
The relationship now is about 3-4 workers for every retiree.
Problems? Absolutely - but at least Bush tried to do something about it - a
very politically unwise thing to do. The Democrats knew this - and kept mum
about the problem while using Bush's words against him - which they have a
perfect right to do. Meantime, this major problem is left to fester.
However, I doubt that many young people will now rush to the stock market.
(I suspect that few would have in any case.)
I understand that social security funds have been earning about 1%. Surely,
that could have been improved upon. Can you imagine the difference if all
that money had been earning 5% over the years?
>After finding out that those who slandered the use of Executive privileges
>would use them, too, especially regarding secrecy of White House papers,
>later in 2001 we learned to our horror that the government's agencies
>couldn't protect us from massive harm from non-weapons of mass destruction
>by non-militarized fanatics in spite of all that military hardware, practice
>and muscle. More recently, we've suffered yet another blow that the people
>who shoulda.coulda.woulda didn't ("connect the dots") and the people who are
>minding the American store are "out to lunch".
Yep, it's true. The President, coming to office in the beginnings of a
recession, with many urgent things cropping up should have completely
reorganized the FBI and the CIA in the eight months before the twin Towers
collapsed.
He received information, which material he promptly turned over to the FBI
and the CIA who failed to give the intelligence the importance it deserved.
In their defence, they probably get tens of thousands of reports each week.
Sorting them must be a nightmare.
I don't much approve of Homeland Security, but maybe it's Bush's way of
getting around the bureaucratic sloth. However, more probably, he is doing
what any politician does - which is something, anything, to show he is on
top of things. We both know it is dangerous. In fact, I would say that 90%
of the things we have done since 9/11 have shown the terrorists
accomplished their aims.
>If I were a superstitious person, I would take note that George Walker Bush
>was linked to all of these and wonder if he isn't just a very bad omen. For
>many of us, Bush's ascension to the swearing-in ceremony in January 2001 was
>a bit like OJ Simpson getting off the hook and moving to - surprise! -
>Florida. Of course, OJ really is looking for the killer just like Bush
>really is going to reform corporate fraud and really do something about the
>economy - for the rest of us.
That's because you are a fervent Democrat (remember to be buried in Chicago).
The Democrats lost. Florida offered a tiny hope of changing things - but it
failed, even though the all-Democrat Florida Supremes broke constitutional
law in an attempt to change things so Gore would win.
You'll notice that Democrats bitterly say the US Supremes decided the
election, yet I haven't heard a word about the affront to the Constitution
by the Florida Supremes that made intervention by the US necessary.
All the US Supremes said - 7 of the 9 - was that the Florida Supremes did
something unconstitutional. That's their job.
Sorry, it made you unhappy.
>Why did you say that "Cheney, White, and Thompson ARE INNOCENT, AS YOU
>KNOW." Has the Supreme Court decided for us already?
>- Karen, "Free the Bush Twins - send Dad back to Texas" Watters Cole
If you want to do well in politics, Karen, you must watch for traps. Of
course, you know about due process. Don't fall into the trap of acting like
Homeland Security, where apparently due process is discarded. Cheney,
White, and Thompson are innocent.
Harry
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.394 / Virus Database: 224 - Release Date: 10/3/2002
