Selling lottery may be winning ticket
So, sayeth the editorial of the Detroit News. I will give them this, at least the put the qualifier "may" in the title. Selling the state lottery may be the winning ticket in the same way that Iraq "may" have weapons of mass destruction and Dick DeVos "may" be a successful businessman instead of the scion of Amway.
Anyhow, the Detroit News finds the idea of selling the lottery "exciting". Why they find it so is beyond me. They discuss how much money and how much good the lottery is doing the school system presently, and then go on to claim that it could be worth a lot of money in one lump sum, or in payments over the course of many years. Then they state that
"But there's a possibility that the state could reap even more revenue by selling the lottery and investing the proceeds."
They then fail to say what investments would constitute. At some point they announce that "Lots of factors could turn this into a bad deal for taxpayers." Shhhh, baby. Please don't elaborate. That would make us consider both sides of the issue, and nobody wants that. Lets just leave it as some ambiguous warning to cover your ass if things fall apart.
Let me summerize the editorial for you:
They're advocating, sort of, looking at selling the state lottery. Unless it's a bad deal. In which case, then, don't. But it is good that they're considering it, which they are.
So, what's your fucking point? What opinion is being expressed here? This is about as non-editorial of an editorial that you can get. They could have written the title to this piece and just left it and you'd be as informed as having actually read through the whole thing.
Moving on:
The Conservative Media has been putting up some really good stuff on their blog recently. I recommend checking it out. They highlight the smear campaign that's started against Senator Levin.
Send them some love.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Dick Cheney's daughter and irony found skipping hand in hand through the Washington Post Op-Ed.
I know I normally stick to Michigan related posts on this site, but...
Hooo boy. via MSNBC per the Washington Post.
So much is wrong with this i almost don't know where to begin. Let's start with a summary statement:
Liz Cheney gives Sen. Hillary Clinton a courtesy clap for being a woman and running for President, and then attacks her for not having "spine" for the Iraq debacle.
from MSNBC story:
"Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war," Liz Cheney, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said in an opinion article in The Washington Post.
Yes. Indeed. She'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency, instead of running on the high moral ground her father and W. ran on in 2000 and 2004. And apparently Sen. Clinton's views finally coming into line with that of the majority of the public and the majority of her constituents represents doing whatever it takes. God forbid she actually listened to the voters that elected her. In a weird way it implies that if it weren't for her attempt at the presidency that Hillary might be all for this flawed, widely criticized meaningless troop increase. Which, honestly, i highly doubt.
The next part of the MSNBC article, and Liz Cheney's op-ed piece is the best to me:
"I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war of her male colleagues have," Cheney wrote. "Steel in the spine? Not so much."
Yes, Hillary's announcement was definitely a sign of progress for women everywhere. That she can run for President, my how far women have come. How very noble of you to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is a woman forming an exploratory committee to run for President of the United States of America. Except this was a sign of progress in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole ran for President (remember that?) She actually waited until after the Iowa Caucuses to withdraw, so, maybe google before you start typing?
And the last part quoted in the MSNBC article:
"In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle," Cheney wrote.
No, let's be PERFECTLY clear: the number is NOT arbitrary. It's not a number pulled out of thin air. The number represents the current troop levels on the ground. And there's a reason there's questions about the latest escalation in on both sides of the aisle. Because the strategy is flawed. They're trying to prevent more people from being blown up needlessly.
They are NOT restricting the ability of our troops to fight and win this war. The military targets have been accomplished for years. Right now we are policing a civil war. In order to "win" the war in the terms that Liz Cheney is talking about, according to most experts and generals, you would need FAR MORE TROOPS than Bush is proposing to send. And in this political climate, with all of the poll numbers so low, that will not happen.
We are NOT helping the terrorists win. By all accounts we're dealing with "sectarian violence" in Iraq. Nobody associates the war in Iraq with the war on terror no matter how many times you say it. The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs" and so on. There is no battlefront, all you can do is hope to stem the tide.
I can't believe i'm actually writing in defense of Hillary Clinton. Out of all of our presidential candidates I like her the least. She's been too hawkish on the war and too DLC friendly for my taste.
Hooo boy. via MSNBC per the Washington Post.
So much is wrong with this i almost don't know where to begin. Let's start with a summary statement:
Liz Cheney gives Sen. Hillary Clinton a courtesy clap for being a woman and running for President, and then attacks her for not having "spine" for the Iraq debacle.
from MSNBC story:
"Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war," Liz Cheney, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said in an opinion article in The Washington Post.
Yes. Indeed. She'll do whatever it takes to win the presidency, instead of running on the high moral ground her father and W. ran on in 2000 and 2004. And apparently Sen. Clinton's views finally coming into line with that of the majority of the public and the majority of her constituents represents doing whatever it takes. God forbid she actually listened to the voters that elected her. In a weird way it implies that if it weren't for her attempt at the presidency that Hillary might be all for this flawed, widely criticized meaningless troop increase. Which, honestly, i highly doubt.
The next part of the MSNBC article, and Liz Cheney's op-ed piece is the best to me:
"I suppose Hillary Clinton's announcement was a sign of progress. In 2007, a woman can run for president and show the same level of courage and conviction about this war of her male colleagues have," Cheney wrote. "Steel in the spine? Not so much."
Yes, Hillary's announcement was definitely a sign of progress for women everywhere. That she can run for President, my how far women have come. How very noble of you to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is a woman forming an exploratory committee to run for President of the United States of America. Except this was a sign of progress in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole ran for President (remember that?) She actually waited until after the Iowa Caucuses to withdraw, so, maybe google before you start typing?
And the last part quoted in the MSNBC article:
"In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle," Cheney wrote.
"Let's be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists," she wrote.
No, let's be PERFECTLY clear: the number is NOT arbitrary. It's not a number pulled out of thin air. The number represents the current troop levels on the ground. And there's a reason there's questions about the latest escalation in on both sides of the aisle. Because the strategy is flawed. They're trying to prevent more people from being blown up needlessly.
They are NOT restricting the ability of our troops to fight and win this war. The military targets have been accomplished for years. Right now we are policing a civil war. In order to "win" the war in the terms that Liz Cheney is talking about, according to most experts and generals, you would need FAR MORE TROOPS than Bush is proposing to send. And in this political climate, with all of the poll numbers so low, that will not happen.
We are NOT helping the terrorists win. By all accounts we're dealing with "sectarian violence" in Iraq. Nobody associates the war in Iraq with the war on terror no matter how many times you say it. The "war on terror" is like the "war on drugs" and so on. There is no battlefront, all you can do is hope to stem the tide.
I can't believe i'm actually writing in defense of Hillary Clinton. Out of all of our presidential candidates I like her the least. She's been too hawkish on the war and too DLC friendly for my taste.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Detroit News seen mumbling incoherently to self about charter schools, many worry if sanity has slipped away forever.
In today's updated online editorial the Detroit News pleads for the cap of 150 charter schools to be lifted as a cure for what ails detroits students.
"Charter schools are independent public schools, usually chartered by a state university, that operate outside of some work rules imposed on standard public schools. They are variable in quality -- but parents, especially in Detroit, should be given more options to escape a clearly failing school system."
Ahh, yes. The tried and true "deserve more options" option. That bastion for the free flowing of thoughts and ideas to solve problems in a serious way. Results be damned. Sure, the education your child receives may be worse than the one in the Detroit Public School system, but, garsh darn it, your child DESERVES to underachieve. Aren't you happy? You get a choice!
Are Detroit Schools falling apart? I dare anyone to argue otherwise. But sending more money out of the district? That doesn't seem like long term solution. It sounds like adding more anchors to a ship that's listing badly. Now, here comes the part where a Republican would attack my stance on this issue.
What's my solution? Don't have one. That doesn't make adding even more charter schools with questionable results to the mix the solution. Here's the thing. There is no easy fix. There really isn't. Adding more charter schools adds more mediocre options to an already bleak education situation. And the "well at least it's SOMETHING" argument falls flat. I'm all for education. I think education is one of the big keys for any sort of economic development in this state. It has to be a place that's attractive to employers. If they are to live here, and their children, and their workers children to attend the schools in the area, it's essential to have good, quality schools. I'm in favor of raising the quality of the education system, but i think spreading the education dollar even further across this area is a mistake.
"Charter schools are independent public schools, usually chartered by a state university, that operate outside of some work rules imposed on standard public schools. They are variable in quality -- but parents, especially in Detroit, should be given more options to escape a clearly failing school system."
Ahh, yes. The tried and true "deserve more options" option. That bastion for the free flowing of thoughts and ideas to solve problems in a serious way. Results be damned. Sure, the education your child receives may be worse than the one in the Detroit Public School system, but, garsh darn it, your child DESERVES to underachieve. Aren't you happy? You get a choice!
Are Detroit Schools falling apart? I dare anyone to argue otherwise. But sending more money out of the district? That doesn't seem like long term solution. It sounds like adding more anchors to a ship that's listing badly. Now, here comes the part where a Republican would attack my stance on this issue.
What's my solution? Don't have one. That doesn't make adding even more charter schools with questionable results to the mix the solution. Here's the thing. There is no easy fix. There really isn't. Adding more charter schools adds more mediocre options to an already bleak education situation. And the "well at least it's SOMETHING" argument falls flat. I'm all for education. I think education is one of the big keys for any sort of economic development in this state. It has to be a place that's attractive to employers. If they are to live here, and their children, and their workers children to attend the schools in the area, it's essential to have good, quality schools. I'm in favor of raising the quality of the education system, but i think spreading the education dollar even further across this area is a mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
