Because I'm not really sure I'm going to be posting much--but I am really close to finishing the kitchen cabinet project, which will mean that my free time isn't completely absorbed. I doubt that I'll be hitting this gig more than once a week at most.
I know, I can hear that immense whooshing sound from all four of you. Honestly, as a future resident of Mexico or somewhere else in central America, I have to say I've mellowed out quite a lot. Not completely, I hope, but I certainly don't feel the edge that I used to.
Also, My wife is starting an interior design business, and I'll be her indentured servant person that lifts heavy things--and she's much less forgiving about me stealing company time for blogging. And it's all company time.
Sliding into my second week as "Mr. Mom," you've likely noticed that, well, I haven't written squat.
(Offensive content omitted--my apoligies)
I should be done with the template and the new rantavation site by the end of this week--at that point, I'll put up the redirection--and then we're going on a much needed (albeit stress-inducing) weeks' vacation to Mexico.
Meanwhile, I'll try and pick up the pace a bit. You have to understand, though, that The Boss is WAY more demanding of my time than "work" ever was.
But I have to say, after reading Josh Marshall's interview with General Clark, I might just be standing at the bus stop.
For example, take the idea of competition in schools. OK now, what is competition in schools? What does it really mean? Well, competition in business means you have somebody who's in a business that has a profit motive in it. It's measured every quarter. If the business doesn't keep up, the business is going to lose revenue, therefore it has an incentive to restructure, reorganize, re-plan, re-compete and stay in business.
Schools aren't businesses. Schools are institutions of public service. Their job--their product--is not measured in terms of revenues gained. It's measured in terms of young lives whose potential can be realized. And you don't measure that either in terms of popularity of the school, or in terms of the standardized test scores in the school. You measure it child-by-child, in the interaction of the child with the teacher, the parent with the teacher, and the child in a larger environment later on in life.
So when people say that competition is-this is sort of sloganeering, "Hey, you know, schools need this competition." No. I've challenged people: Tell me why it is that competition would improve a school. Most of them can't explain it. It's just like, "Well, competition improves everything so therefore it must improve schools."
If you want to improve schools, you've got to go inside the processes that make a school great. You've got to look at the teachers, their qualifications, their motivation, what it is that gives a teacher satisfaction, what it is a teacher wants to do in a classroom. We've got to empower teachers. Give them an opportunity to lead in the classroom. Teachers are the most important leaders in America. All that is lost in the sloganeering of this party. And the American people know it's lost. So you asked me to give you one thing about this party that's in power -- it's the sort of doctrinaire ideology that doesn't really understand the country that we're living in.
Now I've given money to the Dean campaign (and I have to say, like Bullock, over at OSP, that I LOVE Dean's campaign.) Whether or not he's the best candidate, well, that will come out in the wash. If I could merge Clark with Dean's campaign...Let's say that one of the most important reasons for Howard Dean to win is that more candidates will emulate that campaign style.
We have Kevin Hassett from the American Enterprise Institute to talk to us about the controversy surrounding the supplemental $87 billion.
ME: Kevin, since you were one of the lead percussions for this war, are you at all "shocked" by this additional appropriations need?
Kevin: Of course not. $87 billion is really just a drop in the bucket, compared to the overall Federal Budget. Just because it's $87 additional billion that we didn't have budgeted, and it's all coming out of your children's pockets, shouldn't bother you a bit.
ME: But what about all the people that think this money would be better spent in the US, or even that we should be loaning the money to Iraq instead of giving it?
Kevin: Well, that's just wrong. You see, if we say we're going to loan money, that means every other country would want to loan money, and we don't want loans, we want grants...you know, money for nothing. Back in the old days, when you invaded a country for no good reason, we demanded, after the war, that that country pay "reparations" for their vileness...you ever notice that "vile" is an anagram of "evil?"
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. So in a nutshell, we're giving money to Iraq to repair all the damage we did during our liberation--and moreso, we're paying them for all the damage that Saddam did by hoarding all of that money that we didn't give them while we were imposing sanctions on them. Sanctions that obviously didn't work, because Saddam never disarmed his Weapons of Mass Destruction Dreams...in fact, we're pretty sure he's still dreaming about Weapons of Mass Distruction, and if we ever find him, we'll overthrow him again.
So just think of this money as reparations that Saddam owes his own country, and we're just being kind enough to give him a personal line of credit. So everyone should just shut up and approve that bill and not even look at the fine print that gives me a nice, cushy administration job in Kirkut.
ME: Thank you Kevin. Kevin Hasset is a totally neutral observer from the American Enterprise Institute that doesn't have any connections with the push to war in Iraq or it's whitewashing afterwards...And we're the Liberal and Left-wing Morning Edition on NPR. Back to you, Bob.
