My Photo

September 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« California Dumbing Down – SB1200, the latest chapter | Main | Sandy votes for Obama (updated 2nov12) »

27 October 2012


Russ Steele

All the families that can should be using charter schools, or doing home schooling. In a 2010 study released by the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) estimates there are over 2 million children being home schooled in the U.S. in 2010.
“The growth of the modern homeschool movement has been remarkable,” said Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “Just 30 years ago there were only an estimated 20,000 home schooled children.”
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008) there were an estimated 54 million K-12 children in the U.S. in spring 2010, which means home schoolers account for nearly 4% of the school aged population, or 1 in 25 children.

The home schooling options are growing. The Connections Academy is Full accredited free K-12 on line school: and is available to any home with a broadband connection.

The number and size of charter schools is also growing according to a government report.

From 1999–2000 to 2009–10, the number of students enrolled in public charter schools more than quadrupled from 0.3 million to 1.6 million students. During this period, the percentage of all public schools that were public charter schools increased from 2 to 5 percent, comprising 5,000 schools in 2009–10. In addition to the increase in the number of charter schools, the enrollment size of charter schools has grown over time. The percentage of charter schools with enrollments under 300 students decreased from 77 percent in 1999–2000 to 61 percent in 2009–10. The percentage of charter schools with enrollments of 300–499 students increased from 12 to 21 percent during this period; the percentage with 500–999 students, from 9 to 14 percent; and the percentage with 1,000 students or more, from 2 to 4 percent.

I spent two years studying the state of the use education system, having regular exchanges with my brother-in-law who was in the US Department of Education Innovations Branch. I end up with a stack of reports and studies over 2 feet tall. The only solution I could find that would work was to drive a stake through the heart of the system and start over. Not a likely solution. The only realistic solution was to starve the systems of students and let it collapse.

Free on line education funded by Bill Gates, Google, Apple and other corporations like Cisco and HP many provide that opportunity. There is a great deal of effort and money being spent in CA to bring broadband to disadvantaged communities so they can take advantage of these free educational opportunities.


For me such a discussion must start with a nation's value system.

Generations before me traded the self-reliance, puritan work ethic for 'security' offered by The State (via the sacrifice of others). The decline of our nation's values was the byproduct of the progressive sham (knowingly or not).

Women being pushed out of the home, politicized education system, justice system lacking any common sense, the acceptance of debt with open arms are all the byproduct of a bankrupt value system.

What generation would burden their children/grandchildren with $16Trillion+ in debt without even a glimpse of remorse?

Both structures are self interested, but one requires the sacrifice of others (at the end of a gun).


Russ, the are failures among charter schools, and home schoolings, too. It isn't a panacea.

If we'd known the in's and out's of area schools when we moved here, we'd have bought a home in the Pleasant Ridge district and had our boy in Alta Sierra Elementary and Clear Creek Middle Schools, and not had a second thought.

If you're sure that standardized testing means nothing, you might try the Yuba River Charter, they've some of the worst scores in the state. But it's otherwise quite 'progressive' in many senses of the word.

Anyone interested in the Schools We Need and Why We Can't Have Them should read the book by E.D.Hirsch by that name.

Paul Emery


"one or more impeachable offenses, and that a Republican House will so indict Obama"

Can you detail that statement-what offenses specifically

Russ Steele


The important factor is that parents get to chose the Charter Schools they send their children to. I agree, all are not the best schools. But, parents do have the choice. We chose public schools and decided to contribute what was missing in home lesson and tools. We introduced computers at a very early ages and they were far more computer literate than the general school population. One daughter went to Lyman Gilmore who at the time had Commodore 64 computers. The boys were hogging the computers and they installed a password. My daughter by pass the security and installed her own password on each computer which she gave to the girls and not the boys. We got a call from the school about our daughters action. It appears the teacher was unable to remove the password, she needed our daughter make the changes. We worked hard with our daughters to make sure they were prepared for the world out side of the school room.

Greg Goodknight

Parents always had a choice, it's just that is isnt always without a price.

Charter schools are often the worst choice and that includes some local ones.

Lyman Gilmore remains a school well worth escaping from unless instrumental music is important to you. I heard the spring concert last term and its one of the best middle school performances Ive heard.

Russ Steele

Daughter soon moved on to Seven Hills.

Billy T

The 4th Estate is too busy protecting its arrogance to see past its nose. Thus, people like Matt Drudge have emerged. I remember when Matt Drudge was grilled by the National Press Club with questions such as "What makes you think you are a reporter? What are your journalism credentials?" Today, all someone has to do is gather information and put it out there. Now there are thousands of Matt Drudges. I have yet to read the Drudge Report, but the 4th Estate reads it regularly holding their collective noses. Funny, someone who reports what, when, where, why, how, and to what extent is lambasted, including Dr. Rebane and Mr. Steele.

Anyone can file suit. You can sue a ham sandwich as the saying goes. What is discouraging is that ridiculous suits are not being thrown out of court and are actually heard. Cessna won't make better new instruments because if someone crashed a plane in an older model, the new instruments are proof that the previous navigation technology was dangerous. A farmer puts his ladder on a pile of frozen manure. He falls and sues and wins a handsome settlement by a jury of his peers. The ladder company failed to place a warning sticker that said do not place on frozen manure when temperatures rise and humidity increases.

I expect Justice to be blind, not dumb.

George Rebane

Russ Steele on NC2012 has dug up a good Benghazi timeline assembled by a reader from publicly available sources.

The emerged and emerging chronicle of what happened and the WH's involvement, shines a bright light on an incompetent president and his presidency. He adds to the incompetence by an issue of lies that began almost immediately after the State Dept started seeing the live video feeds of the Benghazi attack. That the lamestream was immediately in lockstep with the lies indicts them also.

Obama's impeachable offenses start with lying to Congress (and the American people), gross incompetence, and dereliction of duty. The investigation will add to that charges of promoting conspiracies among the administration's departments that may even reach into the Pentagon.

Had we an unbiased media, Benghazi would already have blown this president's election chances out of the water. Instead, the lamestream will do everything in their power to see that the truth on this is delayed as long as possible, and then misrepresented when delivered.

Upon reflection, what else could we have expected from someone whose experience and successes derived from going door-to-door in poor neighborhoods, exhorting school dropouts, the unread, and the ill-informed to vote for union bosses and government handouts.

Russ Steele


Let’s try to understand why urgent pleas for help in Benghazi went unanswered, and who is responsible. The CIA says it didn’t turn down any pleas. And now, a National Security Council spokesman says that “neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi.”

This leaves the Defense Department. And, indeed, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has stepped up with an explanation of why not assistance was provided, namely uncertainty about the situation on the ground. Thus, it appears that the military may well have been the decision-maker, in the first instance.

But, as Scott suggested this morning, Obama is not off the hook in this scenario. Consider:

Obama must have been fully apprised of the situation in Benghazi. If not, this was dereliction of duty. And if Obama was fully apprised, then he must have asked what action, if any, was being taken (or contemplated) to help our people. If he didn’t ask, then again, this was dereliction of duty.

If Obama asked what action, if any, we were taking to help our people, he would have been told that we weren’t going to deploy our military. Presumably, Obama then asked for an explanation of this decision. If he didn’t, this was dereliction of duty.

The explanation Obama received must have been satisfactory to him; otherwise he would have overruled it or, at a minimum, ordered that it be revisited. If Obama wasn’t satisfied with the explanation, but allowed the decision to stand, this was dereliction of duty.

Notice that in this scenario, Obama never “denies a request for assistance in Benghazi.” He receives no request from the ground because that request is made to others. He receives no request from the military because it does not want to intervene. Yet, Obama still effectively makes the decision not to provide assistance because he ratifies the military’s decision.

In short, either (1) Obama made (through ratificiation, at a minimum) the final decision not to provide military assistance in Benghzai or (2) Obama is guilty of gross dereliction of his duty as president.


George appreciates Anthro more than Greg:

"Evidence of our being past the tipping point is what I want to memorialize in these offerings. I am reminded that all posts on the internet will survive ‘forever’, so that these offerings could inform or amuse a future cyber-anthropologist digging back into the history of the early 21st century."


it isn't about "appreciating" Anthro, Keach. It's the status of the subject as a catch all for students for whom any major will do and won't actually be doing anything with it.

Those who make it through a BA and MA and Ph.D. and then actually get one of the rare jobs that are more than just teaching the next BA crop, like Louis Leakey, improve the human experience. The rest scramble to find a job completely unrelated to it.


OK, the campaign sign defacers are out in record numbers. Break out the trail cameras and put them to good use. I have set up a few of my own.
Consider yourselves warned.. ( LIBS who have destructive behaviour issues)


Greg's tact with other people clearly shows he could use a bit more anthro. Is Greg any relation to John D.?



In my book,, that stands for Post,,Hole,, Digger.


George and Russ, it does look like the last 9 days may well be an October surprise of Obama's making in Libya. The "trust" meme that is Obama's final pass on a 3rd and 6 down play may well be an interception.


Keach, the average Anthro major can't think clearly, either.

The average math or science major could handle Anthro or Sociology, assuming they weren't hounded out by the typical political litmus test. The reverse is rarely true.


Greg, you might be able to handle/pass the courses, by writing essays and marking answers, but I have my doubts about the spirit of the courses taking hold in a positive way. You've had many, many years since college to get it, and you still don't, as near as I call tell.


If by "spirit", you mean the flights of illogical tangencies you're so good at, and the relentless 'progressive' interpretations your department probably did not discourage, you're right.

That kind of "it" I can do without.

Where I got my BS, everyone was required to minor in a humanity. Show me an anthropology department that requires a minor in math or a physical science and I'll be dutifully impressed.


Have some math with your culturally diversified co-sign (the edible kind of geometry):


cuisine, for the slow on the uptake.

Jesus Betterman

"The rest scramble to find a job completely unrelated to it." Since you plainly have no understanding of what "it" is, you are in a very poor position to make pronouncements about what advantages having such a background confers.

Teaching typical classrooms with diverse populations, no application? HA!

Dealing with mental and physical patients in California's diverse population, no application? HA!

Working for an international focused business, no application? Mega HA!


Is there a School of Mortuary Sciences in the Claremont Collective, that is somehow classified as a "humanity"?


Actually earning a living in anthropology doesn't seem to be on the short list.

I'll bow out with an appropriate snippet from George's post above, which I lean towards mainly from leaning against the Keachie view:
"Two major national institutions are now beyond normal repair – K-12 public education and our justice system. Since the feds’ Great Society (1964-68) started the destruction, we have revamped public education by spending trillions and getting nothing out of it save a workforce ever more out of touch with the realworld labor markets. ... Instead we have built up an extremely ignorant and state-dependent teacher class, led by their corrupt unions, that in the aggregate is barely smarter than the students they claim to matriculate. Socialism is openly taught in government schools as the correct way to organize society. Nevertheless, education remains the Republic's ONLY hope."

George, many if not most schools are loaded with Keachies. Where to go from here?

Billy T

we are doomed.

Douglas Keachie

TV doctors, complete with MD's, do they actually earn "livings" practicing medicine? How many hours per week compared to real doctors? Where is their take home pay greater? Do forget to add in their product endorsement incomes, and their speaking tour incomes.

If most schools were loaded with Keachies', test scores would be up a huge amount. Greg hasn't a clue as to who I am as a teacher, even though the evidence is before him daily, and the longer he goes on trying to insult me, the deeper he buries himself, in his favorite substance. That is how it is, and how it should be.

Paul Emery


Did you consider Iran Contra to be an impeachable offense? If not how do you differentiate it from Behghazi?

George Rebane

PaulE 1217pm - I believe it was special prosecutor Walsh who decided that there was not enough evidence to impeach Reagan. That since Poindexter never brought the Oval Office into the decision for diverting funds to the Contras.

Who knows, Obama may also get off on the same grounds and get Panetta, Hilary, or Petraeus to take the fall. (I don't think so.)

Paul Emery


Impeachment proceedings will never happen. What grounds could possibly be raised that could command a 2/3 majority of the Senate, which the is required for conviction. The Senate is likely to remain Democratic anyway as is Obama likely to retain his seat. This is a story only kept alive by the shrill right that has a short life span once the election is over. Of all the sleazy, corrupt, devious and unconstitutional actions of Presidents of both parties this one is pretty minor. Besides, if you Impeach Obama you get Biden. That would be good fun.

George Rebane

There seems to be some confusion about impeachment (PaulE 317pm) and the removal of a President. Impeachment is the indictment of an elected official on grounds that sufficient evidence exists for removal from office should a conviction be obtained for the offenses for which the official was impeached. For POTUS, the House delivers the impeachment (i.e. indicts the President) who must then be tried in the Senate. If POTUS is found guilty by the Senate, then removal from office follows.

For example, Bill Clinton was impeached but never convicted. Richard Nixon saw the handwriting on the wall, and resigned before he was even impeached.

Paul Emery


So do you personally favor the House preceding with the Impeachment process in this situation?

George Rebane

PaulE 349pm - I do. And I wish the House would have more seriously considered it when reviewing the end-runs of Congress and Executive Privilege that Obama had pioneered during his first three years.

But then again, that's only my view of his doings while in office. I would probably have a bias for leniency in such matters if a President would implement policies more in line with my ideology.

Wayne Hullett

Back to the topic of this post, the per pupil expenditure line in the graph is rising at a 1.9% annual rate. Is this line in constant dollars? If it is not, then adjusting for inflation would have it sloping downward rather than upward.

That does not alter the fact that schools are still bad compared to much of the rest of the world.

I would like to see a graph that shows how the exenditure for administrators per pupil has varied over the years, as well as the historical trend of expenditures for actual teachers for teachers/student contact time. To have real transparency and to gain insight into the problem, I think school districts should (be required to) publish that data. Anyone think that will happen?

Paul Emery

Thanks for your candor. In that mode would you have favored impeachment proceedings in the Iran Contra situation?

George Rebane

Wayne 416pm - The increase in per pupil expenditures is in constant dollars. Good point.

PaulE 513pm - Not at all, since the evidence against the President did not exist according to the special prosecutor. And as I candidly stated, Reagan was fighting the spread of communism in the western hemisphere, therefore I would have given him some slack. But that point is historically moot. Obama is fighting for a socialist America, and in that I would give him no slack.


Even the staunchest defenders of Nixon caved when they caught wind of the tapes. Nixon only quit when even his friends couldn't stomach what he was caught doing in the name of getting relected.

Socialism, smochialism. If it comes out he hung out the Embassy to dry in a hope it could be spun as something other than what it was, Obama will find friends going by the wayside, too.

Paul, Gallup has Romney up 51/46. Look at the bright side; impeachment will probably be bargained away in a quid pro quo to keep a lid on lame duck shenanigans.

Billy T

Behghazi was all about running guns to Syria. Hush, hush. Turkey's ambassador to Behghazi met with ours that day, in private. Shipment of guns off Coast arrives a few days earlier. Darn terrorists busted up a good thing. Ain't about 9/11.

George Rebane

Gregory 815pm - You may be right about impeachment being used as a bargaining chip during the lame duck interval. And that especially if the real shenanigans in Benghazi are exposed per, say, BillyT's 845pm.

Paul Emery


Thanks for clarifying the rules of the game when it comes to judging Presidential behavior. Earlier when I accused you exhibiting " partisan babble from a habitual Republican" you responded by saying that you had every intention to "apply the same questions of veracity and character" to both men (originally I was referring to Bush 2).

17 October 2012 at 06:40 PM

Please explain to me why you seem to have a different standard for Republicans than Democrats. Partisan babble? Why should I take you seriously?


It's the disease of partisanship. The means justify the ends, no matter which party is in power. And people wonder why no one trusts these hungry dinosaurs.


Paul, speaking as a voter who was and is proud to have not voted for Reagan (both times), Reagan wasn't impeached over Iran-Contra because there was no there, there.

Ollie North, was given full immunity to tell everything he knew, he apparently did. It didn't result in any smoking gun against Reagan, and the funny thing was he came out looking more honorable than most of his senatorial inquisitors. No, I'm not a North fan, either.

Reagan wasn't impeached because the House wasn't willing to place a bet that they knew they'd lose, and while Tip O'Neal and Reagan could drink together at the end of the day, Tip wanted RR out as much as any House Republican has wanted Obama out.


Earl, you're misquoting the best and most subtle passage in The Prince. It isn't about the ends justifying the means, because that isn't what Machiavelli was saying.

From memory (and every translation has it a little different), when judging men, especially Princes, and there are no disinterested observers, citizens will take the results into account.

It was the key to the "politics of personal destruction" the Clintons played so ruthlessly; any observer that had the goods on them would be dragged through the dirt until they too were seen by most as just another hack.

Yes, Dems and R's in the big leagues play a partisan game, but I've never gotten even a whiff of any Republican playing against Obama/Pelosi/Reid to win not just because of partisan politics; they despise the policies and the "F*** 'em, we have the votes" (a Rahm E. quote) attitude that drove Obamacare to being a pure Democratic initiative.

Obama's White House didn't even have Boehner's telephone number to send him congratulations when Pelosi's majority evaporated two years ago.

Jesus Betterman

"Obama's White House didn't even have Boehner's telephone number to send him congratulations when Pelosi's majority evaporated two years ago. "

Probably because he wouldn't give it to the Obama White House.

I don't know why Greg keeps saying who he is not a fan of. Nobody is good enough for him. He is a motorless fan of Nobody. See any of Art Hoppe's columns regarding Nobody and Wonderfulism.

Greg is Homer T Pettibone writ large and in real life.

Jesus Betterman

The gloves are off for the SuperPacs. With too little time to refute any of it, now comes the Goebbling's of the Far Right Big Money, and damn the Asian American vote, Full Speed Ahead!


Sorry about mangling the means/ends line, Greg. Sometimes the hands don't listen to the brain when typing late at night.
As for this impeachment talk,if you believe that "the buck stops here" (got that one right I hope) in presidential responsibility, then Reagan was as guilty as Obama, and he said as much in his address to the nation. By current standards Reagan should have been drawn and quartered for allowing those 200 Marines to be blown to smithereeens in Lebannon. Somebody dropped the ball on that one, big time, but I don't recall the House even considering the possibility. There was at least a dying ember of respect for the office of the President, no matter which party occupied it, back in those days.

George Rebane

PaulE 939pm – None of what I have said should surprise you. I declared from the gitgo that I am biased, that I don’t attempt to present a balanced view for the simple reason that I have none (and I smile with well-deserved hubris at those who claim to be capable of such balanced views). I have a well-formed belief system of tenets – an ideology if you will – that is not carved in stone, but up for constant revision from thoughts and ideas that are new to me. That is the main purpose of RR.

I am not a partisan, for that means that I embrace the tenets of a party without criticism. There is no party that succumbs to my beliefs, so I sidle up to the closest of those available and try to subvert them to my ways of thinking.

I am a utilitarian, and therefore capable of adapting to serve any of several objectives – survival being one ;-) but also social objectives which I see as beneficial or absolutely necessary for Man’s survival and progress in this his last great century. And in my readings I have found no purely principled path to any social destination – that’s why God invented politics. Another view of this is that some ends do justify some means (Corollary – not all ends justify all means).

Given that, I do cut more slack to those I perceive going in the general direction that I think we should go. Fortunately, I see everyone else being equally pragmatic according to their lights, especially those who then beat their breasts and loudly deny that they proceed but only on principle.

Earlcrabb’s 651am – about Reagan and the 200 marines killed is silly, and further evidence that Bob habitually resorts to liberal logic from his proclaimed middle. There was no history of denied calls for more security that preceded that incident, and the car bomb that killed the Marines in a military compound was in the early days of such suicide weapons being used. Car bombs were not going off routinely all around the middle east (world?). Is anyone blaming Obama for the routine ‘green on blue’ killings in Afghanistan?

Ryan Mount

It's not liberal just because we disagree with it. Reagan was just as much of a douchebag as Obama is with regards to what RL's bringing up.

There is in my mind a connection of Presidents either screwing up or trying to cover their asses. And I agree the events that led up to the 1983 Beirut bombing are distinctively different with regards for the cries for help, however what's similar is Reagan's defense department left the Marines exposed and weak (like no armed guards ring a bell?), which is similar to Obama's Benghazi screw-up.

What's missing, as I alluded to elsewhere, is for Obama to engage in some kind of Grenanda-like invasion. Two days after the bombing, and the day that the Marines were due to arrive home from Lebanon, Reagan invaded a "country" that really didn't need it. Damn Canadians and Medical Students.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, you know?

However, to Reagan's credit, he learned his lesson in the Middle East and never went back for seconds. Maybe Obama could invade the Eastern Seaboard? That would kill two birds with one stone.


Earl, the issue I was taking was not the transposing of means and ends, it was with the 'ends justify the means' statement you were trying to make.

Impeachment isn't about bad outcomes, that's what elections are for. Impeachment is about high crimes and misdemeanors, which includes violation of the oath of office. All Reagan could be tarred with over the Iran-Contra affair was his hands-off management style. In the case of Benghazi, we have some evidence the President and his closest advisers knew from the beginning there was no rioting (over a youtube video or anything else), that there was fighting with an organized force carrying military weapons, the fighting lasted for 7 hours with no reinforcements, and virtually the whole time there was a drone circling providing a real time video and intelligence feed (and it has not been revealed whether or not the drone also carried weaponry).

A week later our Ambassador to the UN made the Sunday talking heads show circuit and told what was known by them at the time to be false, that it was rioting over the 'video'. That was told by many, including President Obama, for over a month.

The way McCain put it two days ago, ""I don't know if it's either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence, which doesn't qualify the president as commander in chief".

Watergate's message was that the coverup is worse than the event being covered up. This smells like the White House was covering up a bad decision, not to escalate as the embassy was under attack, with false statements to Congress and the American people, hoping to keep a lid on bad news until after the election because it didn't fit the campaign narrative of Obama's victory over Islamic terrorists.

I'm guessing no one here besides Keachie actually believed it was rioting over a video made by a guy in SoCal that killed four Americans.


"I am not a partisan, for that means that I embrace the tenets of a party without criticism."

George, that's the most disingenuous definition of "partisan" I've ever seen.
1. A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
2. A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.

Of course you're a partisan.


"what's similar is Reagan's defense department left the Marines exposed and weak (like no armed guards ring a bell?), which is similar to Obama's Benghazi screw-up."

The issue now is not at all like the Beirut bombing. That was one weak point in local security that allowed an explosives laden truck to drive past and blow up a barracks, and that was a MILITARY target, fair game as we'd supported the Lebanese military. There was no denying of requests by the Sec'y of State or their office for security, and no coverup afterwards. After the fact, just about everywhere, secure areas got real physical barriers that would keep a vehicle from rolling through, not just guards with machine guns that might not be loaded.

My understanding is this: In this case, there were weeks and months where the Ambassador was asking for more security and didn't get it. After the attack started, the Embassy (a CIVILIAN target) asked for intervention, that they were under attack. This would have gone directly to someone standing next to the president. The president is in that loop. This went on for seven hours, and real time video and other intelligence covering the attack was being fed from the drone in the area. Within the week, Ambassador Rice made the talk show circuit to blame rioters inflamed by a video. President Obama blamed it on rioters inflamed by a video, and to date, there's no evidence they'd ever been told there were rioters on the scene at Benghazi. And there weren't. That fig leaf was ripped away.

George Rebane

Gregory 1051am - Disingenuous? I beg to differ, for what purpose would I want to lack in frankness, candor, or sincerity on these pages where I bare myself daily. With all due respect, you guys are not worth my becoming disingenuous - you get what I believe and opine, and nothing more, and I get your own thoughts or ire in fair exchange. I curry none of your favors by bending mine.

"... proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea."??!! Then what word do I use to describe someone who is a proponent of a political party, no matter how that party's factions, people, or ideas change over time or space? We have separate words for being proponents of causes (e.g. eco-activist), factions (e.g. blue dog Democrat), persons (fan, Peronista), and ideas (e.g. free marketer). Partisan is the perfect word for a person who embraces socio-politics through membership in and defense of a political party. (Since this is the sense in which I use and understand the term in the context of RR, perhaps I should add it to my Glossary.)

The definition you cite is another one of those modern day definitions that have become either circular or so broad as to discard the advantages of an expanding language while making it dysfunctional wrt its information carrying capacity. I reject it.

Ryan Mount


My point was more about the distractions and/or cover-ups that Presidents employ to mask their screw-ups. I think the invasion of Grenada is linked to the Beirut bombings with that in mind. Obama's shape-shifting post Benghazi and the convenient distraction of Sandy are also part of the plan.

Yes, I'm cynically saying that the Obama administration appreciated both the distraction of Sandy, to George's point, and the opportunity it give him to act Presidential. As Reagan did with Grenada.

So for the record, I agree with your analysis of both events. I'm just watching the tail wag the dog.


George, partisan means partisan, not "purely partisan". It doesn't mean you're only in it for the gang you belong to. I'm sorry if it wasn't disingenuity but just your succumbing to the recent trashing of ethical partisanship that motivated you. I'd also forgotten the deceptive nature of disingenuousness and for that I do apologize.

I'm guessing you want a Republican choosing the next Supreme court justices and other members of the Federal judiciary. I'm guessing you prefer Republican control of the House and the Senate to help a Republican President get a Republican agenda implemented. If you believe, as a team, Republicans can help create a government that would be better, you're a partisan.

Being a partisan doesn't mean your only motivation is winning. That's a redefinition that, I suspect, grows out of the "progressive" delusion that they don't have an ideology, it's all just common sense and good judgment and to be motivated by anything else is morally wrong. The fact that, from the outside, they appear even more purely partisan than Republicans are tends to get ignored.

Ben Emery

Here is what creates this disgusting anti-democratic partisanship that plagues our government today, whether it be state or federal.


Ryan, be rational. There is no bloody way Reagan could have mobilized 8,000 troops for an coordinated invasion in 48 hours in response to a suicide bombing in Lebanon. That had been in the works for quite some time.

Ryan Mount

> Ryan, be rational.

No gin for you! Michael gets your round. Maybe George. Maybe, *Steve.*

Look, I never said that there was no planning. Let me check...

Nope! Double checking...NOPE X2. I just said/implied that there was an *opportunity* to cover up and bomb a Canadian air built air strip. Those damn commie Canadians! Ok. Ok. And the Cuban "workers" armed with ZU-23-2's. Of course, you'll remember that we had an extraordinarily large military presence already in Central America already? Right?

But never mind that. Let's examine your chief assertion: You're not implying that we can move a few thousand troops in a few hours? Granted with planning. I certainly hope you're dead wrong and our strike forces aren't run like the DMV. (BTW, The initial invasion force was way under 7000, BTW in the hundred to be exact. Over the course of a week the forces ballooned.)

I'm not questioning the *wisdom* of invading the country, as much as I'm questioning it's *motive." And there's the fact that I hate Reagan and all of the Elvis worship that surrounds his mystique. So there's that.

Obama gets the same treatment regarding Benghazi.

The Marines arrived back in the USA on the same day we invaded Grenada. Again, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Paul Emery


So then if you were a member of the House during an impeachment proceedings would you more likely give a preferential nod to a Republican or someone with similar beliefs as you when put to a vote.

George Rebane

PaulE 140pm - to "someone with similar beliefs" to mine, all other things being equal. You asked a very precise question, which I answered with equal precision. I hope it is understood in that light.

Jesus Betterman

Just when exactly did the first post show up here proclaiming a terrorist act as opposed to being open to the video as a problem? What exactly was the response time? Less than 48 hours? Prove it.

Jesus Betterman

As near as I can tell, it took you 3 days to go public with the idea that it wasn't a result of the video, although that did provide excellent cover for the operation:

14 September 2012
An Amateur in the White House


Ben E, Gingrich was just copying the Democrats and beat them at their own game, ending the Dem's domination of the House. Before Gingrich, there had not been a Republican Speaker since before I first ate solid food as an infant in the 50's. That is politics. If you want to tone it down, give them less money to spend, and Gingrich was arguably much less partisan than Speakers Big Daddy Jesse Unruh and Willie Brown in California, the architects of California's demise.

Ryan, so you've decided to kiss off rationality and stick with the juvenile treatment; please wipe your nose and use a tissue this time, not your sleeve. In short, if Reagan's DoD didn't put it together on the spur of the moment, you agree it was already set in motion in place long before the Beirut bombing happened, and about all you could claim is that Reagan didn't delay it because of Beirut.

Really, that's even more lame than most conspiracy innuendo.

George, the definition of "partisan" I provided has been around a long time. Four centuries or so.

Keach, Ambassador Rice was touting riots over the video as *the* reason for Benghazi a week after the killing of Stevens, and the White House didn't abandon the video as a reason, continuing the false claims of a riot, until a month had passed.

George Rebane

Re Benghazi attacks -


Re: Benghazi... Et tu, Leno?


Re: partisanship. The blind spots remain.

We have partisan offices and non-partisan offices. How many of the folks here want to hide all party preferences from our ballots to insure all can, like his Purpleness, pretend that the lack of a declared party means you aren't "partisan"?

In most states, if you're registered as a member of a party, you can vote for their candidates in the primary. You're a member of that party. A "partisan".

"The definition you cite is another one of those modern day definitions that have become either circular or so broad as to discard the advantages of an expanding language while making it dysfunctional wrt its information carrying capacity. I reject it." GR 11:53

The wiki has an interesting treatment:

George, they cite *your* definition as the modern usurper that has crept into place over the last few decades. I reject it.

George Rebane

Gregory 413pm - Well glory be. Perhaps there are others who also want English to become a more precise language. And your rejection of that allows all here to understand or misunderstand our respective uses of 'partisan'.

In sum, I do wonder if in your lexicon there is another word that has the equivalent and unique meaning that I give to 'partisan' in my 1153am - someone who is simply "a proponent of a political party". If not, then you must continue to communicate either ambiguously or inefficiently (using more words to delineate which of the many definitions of partisan you have intended).

Michael Anderson

I'm with Greg. I think the political-party affiliation of "partisanship" has come and gone. I think the newest, and most correct, definition is about who or what the partisan is yelling about the loudest at the moment.

Partisanship has once again moved from the subject to the predicate.

George Rebane

MichaelA 951pm - perhaps then you have a word for people who are proponents of a political party.

Michael Anderson

GeorgeR 1022pm - Yes I do. Rs and Ds: dipwads. Anything else: progressives. Perhaps this puts me in close with Ben & Earl, but so be it.

Todd Juvinall

So if the indies become the third party in America, are they a "party" and are they partian? I think they are simply unable to make a decision and are "sheeple".

Todd Juvinall

Oh one more thing MichaelA. If you have never served the people of the country as an elected official you obviously cannot be taken seriously in these opinion bogs.

George Rebane

MichaelA 1022pm - now there's an answer I didn't expect from you; from lesser lights maybe, but not from you.


I take Todd very seriously in his opinion BOGS (sic, or maybe not?).

Paul Emery

There is so much I'd like to say about the monopoly of the Two Party system but here's a start

The Republicrats are like professional wrestlers who go through the ritual of being competitors and putting on a fight for the crowd. They collaborate on doing everything they can to stifle third parties. If Gary Jonson was allowed to be part of the so called Presidential debates there is no doubt he would get at leas 25% of the votes.

The Commission is a non-profit, corporation as defined by federal US tax laws, whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations-the same ones that hedge their bets by supporting Repubs and Dems.
Here's a little wiki history of the commission

"The CPD has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates before it withdrew from the position as debate moderator with this statement after the 1988 Presidential debates: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." The Commission was then taken over by the Democratic and Republican parties forming today's version of the CPD."

KVMR ran the entire debate of third party candidates moderated by Larry King. We have devoted more air time to Third Partys than any other regional media. Here's a YouTube of the debates. Skip forward to go directly to the debates. Before you blindly vote Republicrat at leaast take the time to see this.

Paul Emery

That's the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Take the time to read this by Emil Medellin · University of Houston

"The best slave is the one who believes he is free."


This is the least of it. The chairmen of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) - Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. & Paul G. Kirk Jr. -are the former CHAIRMEN of the RNC & DNC. The other chairman, Michael D. McCurry is a former DEMOCRATIC Press Secretary. All of these guys are LOBBYISTS in Washington - ALL THREE - and Fahrenkopf Jr. is the #1 LOBBYIST for the American Gaming Association - the CASINOS! What are HIGHLY PARTISAN former Republican & Democratic National Chairmen - all currently working as LOBBYISTS - doing running a debate that's supposed to be NONpartisan?

While the airwaves are a PUBLIC medium, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - the regulatory commission charged with over-seeing these sham debates' broadcast - is a PUBLIC commission, and the Presidency its
elf, is a PUBLIC office, the (CPD) is underwritten by PRIVATE FUNDS from:Anheuser-Busch, Southwest Airlines, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP., The Kovler Fund, and The Howard G. Buffett Foundation. What is PRIVATE CORPORATE MONEY doing FUNDING PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?

But it gets worse; the Commission is a PRIVATE CORPORATION that is said to be a 501(c)(3), but BY DEFINITION - 501(c)(3)s are REQUIRED to be NONpartisan. The FCC, who oversees broadcast media, is LEGALLY charged with preventing “unfair, biased, & illegal broadcasts”, yet continues to allow suppression of 3rd party candidates who meet the above requirements and are receiving MATCHING - TAX-PAYER BASED - Federal Election Commission (FEC) funds. This is a COMPLETE failure of the FCC to undertake its mandated duties & obligations. And what of the Attorney Generals, who are charged with "upholding & enforcing the law"? ALL OF THIS has been going on since this 'memorandum' was enacted, back in '88. No enforcement of law to be seen. The last non-Republican/ non-Democrat President: Millard Fillmore - 1853. The best slave is the one who believes he is free.

George Rebane

PaulE 1133am - Given the apparent format of the debates we have seen since, say, 1988, how do you see the two-party partisan CPD impacting the proceedings since they are moderated in different forms by different public individuals (mostly leftwingers) asking their own questions? Are they all in the tank with the CPD? What kind of threats or cajoling could the CPD do to affect more than who is allowed to debate?

BTW, I do agree with you that 'all' legitimate political parties offering candidates for president in some large fraction of states should be included in the presidential debates. I support that because such minority or fringe party candidates will raise ideas and issues avoided by the main contenders. For instance, the gentlemanly agreement not to bring up the Benghazi Bamboozle in the last two debates would not have been honored by some third party candidate - and there are other examples/issues.

Paul Emery


I highly recommend you listen to the Third Party debates cited above. There are all kinds of questions and answers that are avoided by the Republicrats.

They impact the proceedings by excluding third parties from the debates therefore ensuring a monopoly for the Republicrats. The professional wrestling analogy is a good one. At the end of the day they divide up the spoils and continue their real job which is to act a a collection agency for special interest groups as payment to ensure the control of the ruling class. When they leave office they go to work for the same as lobbyists. No wonder they conspire to keep out third partys. Ron Paul was the Republican puppy dog who shut up and followed the stay command when his time was up even though his followers were screwed by the Repubs. Dennis Kucinich was pushed out by redistricting replaced by someone more "moderate"

George Rebane

PaulE 101pm - will do, thanks. But I didn't see an answer to any of my 1159am questions re the CPD.

Paul Emery

It doesn't matter what the questions are if there are only two candidates. The fact is that there are major parts of our population that don't believe in either party. For example the Libertarian view on foreign policy (bring um home) or the Greens urgency on global warming. No questions about the billions spent on the war on drugs or the militarization of our police forces that you so properly point out or the constitutionality of the patriot act or auditing the Fed. The questioners don't need to be in the tank. They know what to say.

Romney not pushing Benghazi was some kind of strategic decision. You'd have to ask him about that.

The comments to this entry are closed.