Free subscribers can comment on Thursday editions, can’t they? That said we are (mostly) a pretty civilized group. In contrast, Neil Steinberg says he often has to shut down the comments section of his Every Goddam Day blog due to the quantity and level of vitriol.
I don't believe so. Eric occasionally opens up the comments on certain posts, I don't know the technical behind it...maybe he temporarily elevates everyone to paid for a limited time.
One of the reasons I pay is to be able to (politely) vent my spleen on some of the subjects here. Like when Zorn gets persnickety if someone uses a word just beyond the confines of its tight definition.
Comment threads are open to paid supporters of the PS. I think I may have opened up the thread to all once or twice but in general I've found this to be a good way to keep things civil here.
My guess is the rotten pro-Hamas, Jew haters that want all the Jews in Israel dead & gone, thought if they inflated their numbers they would scare Harris & the Democrats into caving in to their absurd & obscene demands! 'Plus they probably had a lot of people say they would go & then backed out, either because they couldn't get off work [if they actually have jobs], or got scared of getting arrested & then having a record.
And I just got an email from Metra that the main Madison St entrance to Ogilvie will be closed once again due to the pro-Hamas Jew hating scum protesting the Israeli consulate located there.
Gary, I seem to agree with most of the opinions you hold. But my liking for this forum stems from the civility not often found in others. You have been getting awfully personal and negative lately. I claim some personal guilt for this because I have been very negative toward Trump, who to me is a special case based on his treatment of others. Again, I have no sympathy for those protesting Gaza. I don't believe Jew-hating scum is necessary. Let's also remember I can separate those opposing Israel policy from those actively supporting Hamas.
If I offended you by misspelling your name, I apologize. With me it's more typing. I have commented previously in hypocritical MAGAs supporting Israel when they have never liked Jews. But this is different than personal insults, which is different than misspelling your name. I have no desire to turn this forum into so many others with zero civility. Worse yet, I have no desire to see this turn into a Trump like forum where disagreement means the other person is a bad person.
I was joking about the misspelling, which is why my Substack name is what it is. I got the name from the similarly spelled Garry McCarthy who said that when he ran for mayor after getting fired as police chief, maybe 6 years ago.
My bad! I didn't see that before. Oh well, I am slowing down as others here probably are. Laurence is spelled with a "u". People and companies insist on correcting my spelling of my name. Maybe I'm wrong. No one is my family is sure why it's not spelled with a "w". Most of my employers all my life have gotten my last name wrong, no matter how many years I worked for them. I should come up with a handle like yours. Frankly, I'd rather they spell my name wrong than think I'm.like Trump.
Could someone explain to me why the LGBTQ and abortion rights activists are protesting at the Democratic Convention? Did they get their convention itineraries mixed up? Something does not compute. I’m trying to envisage the NRA or National Right to Life protesting at the GOP Convention; it would seem highly improbable.
In the list of protest groups, I was surprised to find the Illinois Policy Institute. I don't know much about them, other than knowing your fellow Rascal Austin Berg works for them. What's up with that? What are they protesting? Did they confuse DNC and CTU?
The IPI leans quite libertarian and fiscally conservative, but I would not call it an extremist group by any means. Austin Berg is a very smart, vary thoughtful man with whom I have some respectful disagreements. I would in no way call him "far right."
I'd called the IPI very wing nutty, as they are the group that supplied Governor Rauner with a bunch of genuine whack jobs that he had to fire not long after he hired them, their ideas were so nuts!
"In the case of a condemned prisoner found to be innocent at the last minute by DNA evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to step in and halt the execution."
No, it doesn't. NO court "steps in" on anything; a case must have been brought before it by the parties. And, frankly, the current Supreme Court, in the example given, would very likely allow the execution to proceed, the defendant having exhausted all legal remedies
Lawyers for defendants can file with SCOTUS at any time for a last-minute stay. From the Death Penalty Information Center:
"The state of Texas was scheduled to execute Ruben Gutierrez on July 16, 2024; however, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare, last-minute stay of execution just 20 minutes before he was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection. This is the first stay of execution granted by the Supreme Court since it issued a stay for Richard Glossip in 2023"
I think it is very rare for any court to “act on its own”. I’m sure that every condemned prisoner with new DNA evidence has access to an attorney who can go to the appropriate court and “ask it to act” or “step in”.
Exactly. I was just trying to make the point that the original commenter who said the courts could "step in" really meant they could step in after they were asked to act, like they did last month for Ruben Gutierrez. I don't think they were suggesting that courts should find a way to be proactive. I threw in "very rare" instead of impossible because I'm not in the legal profession and figured someone would come up with an exception! :)
Skeptic - Thank you for your reference to one of my favorite groups back in the day. Immense talent - Stephen Stills, Neil Young, Jim Messina, et al. Now in addition to For What it's Worth that you quoted, I will enjoy an ear bug of Rock and Roll Woman all day - jamming 🎵 🎸to it now, thanks again!
Yes, when it comes to achievement that is an undeniable factor, as is who they've having dinner with at night -- their personal economic situation, etc.
“If money didn’t make a difference in outcomes, the laws of economics would suggest they’d call for massive cuts. “
In Oak Park, there is a strong desire to spend more money on schools, even as the performance and ranking of the schools unarguably declines. After soaking in this for 35 years, I doubt the connection between spending and performance at the high end. I see it as a luxury good. The luxury isn’t just the high-end facilities (we are building a new pool that will cost $120 million unless it overruns its budget.). The luxury is the satisfaction of having the highest paid teachers and the most numerous specialists and administrators.
The high taxes are effectively their own benefit, like the price of a Ralph Lauren shirt in the 80’s. We spend whatever is asked here and if you don’t like that or can’t afford it, Oak Park is not for you. Move your family to Elmhurst or Lagrange, or Berwyn or Chicago if your kids are done with school.
There is a small but loud segment of the population that strongly believes the political and economic system under which we live is corrupt at its core. Consequently they see no difference between the right and the left, categorizing both sides as inherently corrupt. The fact that they can openly express their views without fearing punishment is lost on them.
In regard to those who claim to be politically conservative: Does your political conservatism include supporting Trump? This election is not simply liberal vs. conservative. It’s democracy vs. dictatorship. Which side are you on?
Hi Fred - My conservativeism does not lead me to supporting Trump personally. However, I will vote for him and support his election because of the markedly more conservative policies and appointments resultant if he is elected.
Hi Peter - If you elect to label anyone who will vote for Trump, about half the country, as Trumpers, that's your prerogative. As for Vance, I much would have preferred Nikki Haley or Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's VP pick. But I respect him as a fellow veteran and self-made man who overcame abject poverty and a drug-addicted single parent to become very accomplished in life.
Ah Dave, let us be accurate. Trump never got 50% of the vote so your estimate is less than half the country.
He lost the last election, so we must say at the moment Trumpers are in the minority.
Dave, can someone vote for Harris but still claim to be a conservative?
As usual, you do not answer the question, are you excited that JD Vance is Trump’s VP candidate?
I am pleased, JD seems to be swaying voters to the Democrats. He may be accomplished, but not presently an accomplished candidate.
Trump is getting desperate and may change his “ policies” to keep his butt out of jail. Watch close Dave, he already changed his abortion stance to let the States decide the issue. He may change on other issues in the coming months.
He has no principles, so his “policies” are in play. While you criticized Biden’s competency, I question Trump’s. I am not sure he is capable of holding office.
Good morning Peter - I'm happy to attempt to respond to your specific comments/questions with my views on them.
1. You are very correct in that Trump did not win the popular vote and it will likely be less than half of the voters voting for him in November as well. But I believe it is not misleading to describe people who will vote for Trump as about half the country.
2. I believe there are indeed a good number of conservatives who will vote for Harris. Likely a large percentage of them are motivated by their dislike of Trump personally as opposed to his policies. But I believe there will also be liberals voting for Trump and I think beyond generalizations we cannot label everyone into specific boxes.
3. No, I am honestly not excited about Trump's pic of JD Vance as his VP candidate. I would have been very excited if he had selected Nikki Haley or Tulsi Gabbard, or even somewhat excited if he had picked Tim Scott. But He did not ask my opinion and Vance it is.
4. I do not believe that Trump has materially changed his position on policies. I believe he shares my view of being deeply personally opposed to abortion as the taking of innocent human life, but that constitutionally regulation of abortion appropriately belongs with the respective states. (But it is Harris who is proving to be the queen of flip-flops, now apparently backing away from her previous positions of taxing tips, eliminating private health care in favor of a single payer system, eliminating fracking, etc.)
5. You certainly have every right to question Trump's capability of holding office. Personally, while I have concerns about his temperament, I do not see any indication of cognitive issues. Trump had previously proposed that both he and Biden submit to cognitive testing, but of course Biden knew that he could not do that.
Thanks for your reply. It is beyond apparent that one of us is going to be very happy on November 6th and the other one will be unhappy. But then we will still remain as citizens of the greatest country in the world and hopefully find ways to work together.
Dave, time to work on your math. Less than 50% is less than half.
I have voter totals as my stats. What stats do you use to get to your 50%. Think you need a reality check.
Dave, reality check again, he has changed his abortion policy.
And back in his Democratic days, Trump was not adverse to arranging abortions. He has never shown any allegiance to a particular abortion policy.
When Trump gets names wrong (like the doctor who supposedly gave him his cognitive test), his slurring of words, his inability to stay on issues (as pointed out by fellow Republicans) and his obvious lies all point to his competency not temperament.
And Dave, I think America is a pretty good place, but your guy Trump thinks it is a terrible place (listen to him!). He certainly thinks this is nowhere near a great country, he insults it.
I would have similar double-talk about Bill Clinton. A terrible individual personally, but a moderate Dem who could get things done (after the 1994 mid-terms)
My point is that a person can prefer a candidate over the alternative while thinking that the candidate is personally repulsive.
That does not imply that all repulsive people have the same kind or magnitude of flaws.
In the case of Bill Clinton, the repulsion depends on how credible you consider the collection of allegations from Paul Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Wiley.
Of course the story that is most widely reported is Monica Lewinsky, which, while inappropriate, was not an assault as alleged by the other women.
Having a middle class income or higher is far more likely to lead to students succeeding academically, but lower income parents can produce high achievers as well. Once a child is fed and safely housed, parent involvement in education is an even better predictor of success.
I don't wish to simply repeat what has already been said by others. Let's look at it another way. Exactly how does more funding affect student performance? I've been there. I was at the head of the classroom for many years. More than money, I needed attentive students with open minds about learning and all of us knowing that parents at home supported the effort. Sorry, Eric, to burst your bubble. But there is no comparison between high performing suburban districts and inner city schools. At least this is true when you look at attitudes toward school by parents and students. Check attendance rates at different schools. Kids can't be taught if they are not there. I'm not suggesting that money has no role in improving education. Better teachers go where the money is. Money provides the most up to date resources, such as technology and buildings in good shape. But money can be wasted if the families don't care enough to take advantage of it. CPS might not have the resources of, say, New Trier. But the buildings are there. Basic resources such as computers are available in most places. The teachers may not be the most highly paid around, since they are required to live in an expensive city. But they are not getting slave wages. But remember all the old stories about Socrates teaching outside under a tree? It's possible if everyone involved is attentive and cares. My masters classes involved looking at studies about minority education. To summarize, the greatest impediment was the attitude toward education by many in minority communities. American society is racist. Education is a waste of time, because minority kids aren't going to get ahead in society anyway. This is a generalized thought that doesn't apply to all families in minority communities. There are many serious students that want to learn. But classroom teachers also need to deal with many that just don't care and make problems, taking time and attention from the ones that do. So the issue is not just about how much money. It's about who is spending it, how it will be spent, and will it make a difference. I want to finish up with a personal experience. I once interviewed for a principal position in a small town in central Illinois with a mostly Latino population. The superintendent told me right from the start that achievement scores and graduation rates were low. Frankly, most of the parents didn't care whether or not their kids graduated. Many were recent immigrants or maybe second generation. The kids were in school only because the law said so. When they were old enough, the kids were expected to go to work to support the family. The schools were old. But they were maintained pretty well and had everything that surrounding schools in the area did. More money may or may not have improved things. The biggest factor was people simply not caring. The CTU can scream all they want about more money. But what will it be spent on and will it change the attitudes of many in their communities? As others pointed out, it probably won't have much of an effect on underutilized schools. A bloated central office doesn't do much for classrooms. And teachers that care need students and parents that care. I don't think many of the young people sitting it out at home or running around in gangs care whether or not schools get more money.
I have come to know and respect several in this forum. Even when they disagree with me they know how to do it respectfully. Several have shown me up and I often deserve it. I bring this up because more than a few seem to be of my generation age wise and remember the Vietnam protests. It was a different atmosphere. Vietnam was hugely unpopular with a lot of people. Many that disagreed with protests and the tactics were still either against the war or the tactics being used. The problem with the Gaza protesters is that they don't hold the upper hand opinion wise. Israel and supporting them with weapons still has weight over Gazans and their Hamas benefactors. Many in this country don't separate oppressed Gazans from 9-11 terrorists. I have my own issues with the way Netanyahu is doing things. But that doesn't turn me either from Israel or our support for them to protect them from neighbors that wish them destroyed. That's where the real problem is for the protesters- they just don't have the popular support no matter how much they brag about the numbers in the street. In one respect, I am heartening by support by Israel. I'm also worried. How desperate will protesters get when they don't get their way, either in Congess or public opinion? This has been an issue in Europe for many years. People bomb things. They commit random acts of violence against innocents. They crave attention and look to instill fear in those that disagree with them. I know someone here will tell me it happens here. But it is not yet at levels seen elsewhere. So what will happen in Chicago before the week is out? The crowds so far are not even close to what organizers were predicting. The media seems to be yawning. Does that mean we are out of the woods? Or does it portend something violent to get the attention they have not yet achieved? I saw more than a few comments the past couple of weeks from protesters that said they would simply ignore restrictions. Did they mean it? How far are they willing to go? As we saw during the Vietnam era, there were always organizers willing to stir up supporters than sit back and watch others do bad things and get hurt. So after reading today's media accounts of peace and serenity, I am more vigilant than ever. The protesters didn't come to Chicago just to see Harris anointed.
Minor quibble about the discussion of the Monday protest demonstration. I agree with all you said about the demonstration, including the disappointing crowd size (especially when measured against the stated expectations). But the photo you posted showed the line to the six porta-potties, not of the demonstration itself. :)
I hope I'm not starting to beat a dead horse, but the view that "But rules need to be followed until they’re officially changed or overturned through the normal review process." sounds to me extreme and out of touch with reality. Reliance on a higher court to be the backstop requires way too much faith in the system for me, maybe due to having lived under a totalitarian regime or maybe just seeing the SCOTUS just throw to the wind a major moral principle with the presidential immunity ruling. I also know that it takes a heroic effort over many years and often a sacrifice of one's professional and financial life and relationships to go through the full process of overturning an unjust law.
My view is that every public official and every person on each level of the system should exercise moral judgement and do the right thing, and not follow rules blindly. Yes, it would lead to a clerk in Kentucky refusing to marry a gay couple, but she would be overruled by others acting morally. I just hope that if I'm the driver of Rosa Parks' bus I wouldn't call the cops on her for sitting in the wrong seat. And if I'm one of the cops I hope I wouldn't arrest her. If I'm in Poland in 1942 I hope I'd be brave enough to forge documents for some people or hide them or at the very least not follow the rules to report them. I'm probably Godwinning my own argument here, but it's an important example of a case where people should have thought for themselves and not blindly follow rules laid out for them.
EZ - you've heard/read me riff before on education and academic achievement. we differ on school choice, and that's ok [agree to disagree].
but, in criticizing [rightfully] mayor johnson's bald-faced [even with his goatee] attempt to coerce the CPS board to adopt budget busting [we agree] actions to support CTU contract demands, you provide a laundry list of sources to support your position that CPS needs more funding. and, given the size of CPS, i assume you mean LOTS more funding, as a little more funding would have neglgible impact.
accd'g to a google search the avg expenditure per CPS pupil was ~$18.3k. how much more funding do you believe is necessary?
on what would you spend a lot more funding to CPS? avg CPS teacher salary this school yr was $69.1k, 42% >nat'l avg. even allowing for cost & price diff's in urban areas, it seems CPS teachers are well-compensated. shd CPS teachers make a higher salary? better bene's? if so, why?
and where else would you spend the lots more $$ that you believe would increase academic achievement in CPS?
and please, forget about attacking school choice as a false or inadequate alternative - we've already agreed to disagree on that. you're the one making the argument that CPS needs a lot more $$ - assumedly to increase academic achievement [why else?].
i just want to know: how would you spend LOTS more $$, if it were available, to incr academic achievement significantly, especially among minority students from low income families, in CPS?
I suspect the PS comments are more civil than the typical forum because it is restricted to paid members and it skews older than most.
Free subscribers can comment on Thursday editions, can’t they? That said we are (mostly) a pretty civilized group. In contrast, Neil Steinberg says he often has to shut down the comments section of his Every Goddam Day blog due to the quantity and level of vitriol.
I don't believe so. Eric occasionally opens up the comments on certain posts, I don't know the technical behind it...maybe he temporarily elevates everyone to paid for a limited time.
One of the reasons I pay is to be able to (politely) vent my spleen on some of the subjects here. Like when Zorn gets persnickety if someone uses a word just beyond the confines of its tight definition.
EZ: please clarify comment policy.
Comment threads are open to paid supporters of the PS. I think I may have opened up the thread to all once or twice but in general I've found this to be a good way to keep things civil here.
Steinberg strikes a very different tone than Zorn. While EZ is open about his opinion, reasoning and humor are what his posts are all about, IMO.
My guess is the rotten pro-Hamas, Jew haters that want all the Jews in Israel dead & gone, thought if they inflated their numbers they would scare Harris & the Democrats into caving in to their absurd & obscene demands! 'Plus they probably had a lot of people say they would go & then backed out, either because they couldn't get off work [if they actually have jobs], or got scared of getting arrested & then having a record.
And I just got an email from Metra that the main Madison St entrance to Ogilvie will be closed once again due to the pro-Hamas Jew hating scum protesting the Israeli consulate located there.
Gary, I seem to agree with most of the opinions you hold. But my liking for this forum stems from the civility not often found in others. You have been getting awfully personal and negative lately. I claim some personal guilt for this because I have been very negative toward Trump, who to me is a special case based on his treatment of others. Again, I have no sympathy for those protesting Gaza. I don't believe Jew-hating scum is necessary. Let's also remember I can separate those opposing Israel policy from those actively supporting Hamas.
Sorry, but those that oppose Israel, hate Jews as much as Hamas does. No matter what they say, deep down, they just hate Jews!
They're all scum!
And it appears you can't even spell my name correctly!
If I offended you by misspelling your name, I apologize. With me it's more typing. I have commented previously in hypocritical MAGAs supporting Israel when they have never liked Jews. But this is different than personal insults, which is different than misspelling your name. I have no desire to turn this forum into so many others with zero civility. Worse yet, I have no desire to see this turn into a Trump like forum where disagreement means the other person is a bad person.
I was joking about the misspelling, which is why my Substack name is what it is. I got the name from the similarly spelled Garry McCarthy who said that when he ran for mayor after getting fired as police chief, maybe 6 years ago.
My bad! I didn't see that before. Oh well, I am slowing down as others here probably are. Laurence is spelled with a "u". People and companies insist on correcting my spelling of my name. Maybe I'm wrong. No one is my family is sure why it's not spelled with a "w". Most of my employers all my life have gotten my last name wrong, no matter how many years I worked for them. I should come up with a handle like yours. Frankly, I'd rather they spell my name wrong than think I'm.like Trump.
Could someone explain to me why the LGBTQ and abortion rights activists are protesting at the Democratic Convention? Did they get their convention itineraries mixed up? Something does not compute. I’m trying to envisage the NRA or National Right to Life protesting at the GOP Convention; it would seem highly improbable.
To get attention, what else?
It is not he first time someone brings their issue to a protest that has a different focus.
Re: DNC Protests.
In the list of protest groups, I was surprised to find the Illinois Policy Institute. I don't know much about them, other than knowing your fellow Rascal Austin Berg works for them. What's up with that? What are they protesting? Did they confuse DNC and CTU?
The IPI protests everthing the Democrats stand for. They're a far right conservative group of extremists.
Overstatement. They are conservative, but mostly on the fiscal side, not so much social issues. Austin’s main issue is an out of control CTU.
The IPI leans quite libertarian and fiscally conservative, but I would not call it an extremist group by any means. Austin Berg is a very smart, vary thoughtful man with whom I have some respectful disagreements. I would in no way call him "far right."
I'd called the IPI very wing nutty, as they are the group that supplied Governor Rauner with a bunch of genuine whack jobs that he had to fire not long after he hired them, their ideas were so nuts!
"In the case of a condemned prisoner found to be innocent at the last minute by DNA evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to step in and halt the execution."
No, it doesn't. NO court "steps in" on anything; a case must have been brought before it by the parties. And, frankly, the current Supreme Court, in the example given, would very likely allow the execution to proceed, the defendant having exhausted all legal remedies
The last minute rescue would have to be executive clemency on the part of the Governor or President, not the courts.
And, of course, the President has no power to grant executive clemency for a state crime.
Lawyers for defendants can file with SCOTUS at any time for a last-minute stay. From the Death Penalty Information Center:
"The state of Texas was scheduled to execute Ruben Gutierrez on July 16, 2024; however, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare, last-minute stay of execution just 20 minutes before he was scheduled to be executed by lethal injection. This is the first stay of execution granted by the Supreme Court since it issued a stay for Richard Glossip in 2023"
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/united-states-supreme-court-issues-rare-last-minute-stay-for-ruben-gutierrez
That is different from the court "stepping in", which implies that a court will act on its own. It won't. Someone has to ask it to act.
I think it is very rare for any court to “act on its own”. I’m sure that every condemned prisoner with new DNA evidence has access to an attorney who can go to the appropriate court and “ask it to act” or “step in”.
It's not only rare, it's unheard of.
And, no, every condemned prisoner does not have an attorney.
Not just rare, impossible. State and federal courts can just make rulings willy-nilly, they must have a dispute brought before them.
Exactly. I was just trying to make the point that the original commenter who said the courts could "step in" really meant they could step in after they were asked to act, like they did last month for Ruben Gutierrez. I don't think they were suggesting that courts should find a way to be proactive. I threw in "very rare" instead of impossible because I'm not in the legal profession and figured someone would come up with an exception! :)
Sorry for any confusion.
The demands of the March on the DNC call to mind the words of Tom Lehrer’s “Folk Song Army”:
We are the Folk Song Army
Everyone of us cares
We’re against poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares
Also "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield
What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and a-carryin' signs
Mostly say "Hooray for our side"
Skeptic - Thank you for your reference to one of my favorite groups back in the day. Immense talent - Stephen Stills, Neil Young, Jim Messina, et al. Now in addition to For What it's Worth that you quoted, I will enjoy an ear bug of Rock and Roll Woman all day - jamming 🎵 🎸to it now, thanks again!
I suspect that giving more money to schools is less about what students learn and more about who’s sitting next to them in class.
Yes, when it comes to achievement that is an undeniable factor, as is who they've having dinner with at night -- their personal economic situation, etc.
“If money didn’t make a difference in outcomes, the laws of economics would suggest they’d call for massive cuts. “
In Oak Park, there is a strong desire to spend more money on schools, even as the performance and ranking of the schools unarguably declines. After soaking in this for 35 years, I doubt the connection between spending and performance at the high end. I see it as a luxury good. The luxury isn’t just the high-end facilities (we are building a new pool that will cost $120 million unless it overruns its budget.). The luxury is the satisfaction of having the highest paid teachers and the most numerous specialists and administrators.
The high taxes are effectively their own benefit, like the price of a Ralph Lauren shirt in the 80’s. We spend whatever is asked here and if you don’t like that or can’t afford it, Oak Park is not for you. Move your family to Elmhurst or Lagrange, or Berwyn or Chicago if your kids are done with school.
There is a small but loud segment of the population that strongly believes the political and economic system under which we live is corrupt at its core. Consequently they see no difference between the right and the left, categorizing both sides as inherently corrupt. The fact that they can openly express their views without fearing punishment is lost on them.
In regard to those who claim to be politically conservative: Does your political conservatism include supporting Trump? This election is not simply liberal vs. conservative. It’s democracy vs. dictatorship. Which side are you on?
My political conservatism does not include supporting Trump. It never has and never will.
Hi Fred - My conservativeism does not lead me to supporting Trump personally. However, I will vote for him and support his election because of the markedly more conservative policies and appointments resultant if he is elected.
David, kind of double talk. What does it mean that you do not support Trump personally?
You won’t have lunch with him?
A vote for Trump is support for Trump period. You are a Trumper, defined as someone who will vote for Trump no matter what his qualities are.
Guess you are excited that JD Vance is his running mate. Is that one of his “conservative appointments” you hope for?
Hi Peter - If you elect to label anyone who will vote for Trump, about half the country, as Trumpers, that's your prerogative. As for Vance, I much would have preferred Nikki Haley or Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's VP pick. But I respect him as a fellow veteran and self-made man who overcame abject poverty and a drug-addicted single parent to become very accomplished in life.
Ah Dave, let us be accurate. Trump never got 50% of the vote so your estimate is less than half the country.
He lost the last election, so we must say at the moment Trumpers are in the minority.
Dave, can someone vote for Harris but still claim to be a conservative?
As usual, you do not answer the question, are you excited that JD Vance is Trump’s VP candidate?
I am pleased, JD seems to be swaying voters to the Democrats. He may be accomplished, but not presently an accomplished candidate.
Trump is getting desperate and may change his “ policies” to keep his butt out of jail. Watch close Dave, he already changed his abortion stance to let the States decide the issue. He may change on other issues in the coming months.
He has no principles, so his “policies” are in play. While you criticized Biden’s competency, I question Trump’s. I am not sure he is capable of holding office.
Good morning Peter - I'm happy to attempt to respond to your specific comments/questions with my views on them.
1. You are very correct in that Trump did not win the popular vote and it will likely be less than half of the voters voting for him in November as well. But I believe it is not misleading to describe people who will vote for Trump as about half the country.
2. I believe there are indeed a good number of conservatives who will vote for Harris. Likely a large percentage of them are motivated by their dislike of Trump personally as opposed to his policies. But I believe there will also be liberals voting for Trump and I think beyond generalizations we cannot label everyone into specific boxes.
3. No, I am honestly not excited about Trump's pic of JD Vance as his VP candidate. I would have been very excited if he had selected Nikki Haley or Tulsi Gabbard, or even somewhat excited if he had picked Tim Scott. But He did not ask my opinion and Vance it is.
4. I do not believe that Trump has materially changed his position on policies. I believe he shares my view of being deeply personally opposed to abortion as the taking of innocent human life, but that constitutionally regulation of abortion appropriately belongs with the respective states. (But it is Harris who is proving to be the queen of flip-flops, now apparently backing away from her previous positions of taxing tips, eliminating private health care in favor of a single payer system, eliminating fracking, etc.)
5. You certainly have every right to question Trump's capability of holding office. Personally, while I have concerns about his temperament, I do not see any indication of cognitive issues. Trump had previously proposed that both he and Biden submit to cognitive testing, but of course Biden knew that he could not do that.
Thanks for your reply. It is beyond apparent that one of us is going to be very happy on November 6th and the other one will be unhappy. But then we will still remain as citizens of the greatest country in the world and hopefully find ways to work together.
Dave, time to work on your math. Less than 50% is less than half.
I have voter totals as my stats. What stats do you use to get to your 50%. Think you need a reality check.
Dave, reality check again, he has changed his abortion policy.
And back in his Democratic days, Trump was not adverse to arranging abortions. He has never shown any allegiance to a particular abortion policy.
When Trump gets names wrong (like the doctor who supposedly gave him his cognitive test), his slurring of words, his inability to stay on issues (as pointed out by fellow Republicans) and his obvious lies all point to his competency not temperament.
And Dave, I think America is a pretty good place, but your guy Trump thinks it is a terrible place (listen to him!). He certainly thinks this is nowhere near a great country, he insults it.
Just another reason to vote against him.
I would have similar double-talk about Bill Clinton. A terrible individual personally, but a moderate Dem who could get things done (after the 1994 mid-terms)
Skeptic, how do you compare Trump with Clinton?
Clinton is not a convicted felon, helped to reduce the Federal debt while President and did not swindle thousands of people with his bankruptcies.
Certainly a liar, but a piker compared to Trump.
And he really is better looking than Trump thus not requiring massive amounts of make up and hair products.
Me, I would go with Clinton on a face to face comparison.
Also Clinton liked dogs and played the Sax🤪
My point is that a person can prefer a candidate over the alternative while thinking that the candidate is personally repulsive.
That does not imply that all repulsive people have the same kind or magnitude of flaws.
In the case of Bill Clinton, the repulsion depends on how credible you consider the collection of allegations from Paul Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Wiley.
Of course the story that is most widely reported is Monica Lewinsky, which, while inappropriate, was not an assault as alleged by the other women.
But when repulsive behavior becomes criminal behavior that figures into my vote.
When repulsive behavior includes direct insults to my status that figures into my vote.
When repulsive behavior includes attacks on the integrity of our voting system that figures into my vote.
Trump’s repulsive behavior has crossed so many lines that his policies become less important when I vote.
I would not vote for Ted Bundy even if I agreed with all his policies, the same can be said for Trump.
I tend to agree that money matters in a child's education; but perhaps even more so, a childs parents with money is a more direct correlation.
Having a middle class income or higher is far more likely to lead to students succeeding academically, but lower income parents can produce high achievers as well. Once a child is fed and safely housed, parent involvement in education is an even better predictor of success.
I don't wish to simply repeat what has already been said by others. Let's look at it another way. Exactly how does more funding affect student performance? I've been there. I was at the head of the classroom for many years. More than money, I needed attentive students with open minds about learning and all of us knowing that parents at home supported the effort. Sorry, Eric, to burst your bubble. But there is no comparison between high performing suburban districts and inner city schools. At least this is true when you look at attitudes toward school by parents and students. Check attendance rates at different schools. Kids can't be taught if they are not there. I'm not suggesting that money has no role in improving education. Better teachers go where the money is. Money provides the most up to date resources, such as technology and buildings in good shape. But money can be wasted if the families don't care enough to take advantage of it. CPS might not have the resources of, say, New Trier. But the buildings are there. Basic resources such as computers are available in most places. The teachers may not be the most highly paid around, since they are required to live in an expensive city. But they are not getting slave wages. But remember all the old stories about Socrates teaching outside under a tree? It's possible if everyone involved is attentive and cares. My masters classes involved looking at studies about minority education. To summarize, the greatest impediment was the attitude toward education by many in minority communities. American society is racist. Education is a waste of time, because minority kids aren't going to get ahead in society anyway. This is a generalized thought that doesn't apply to all families in minority communities. There are many serious students that want to learn. But classroom teachers also need to deal with many that just don't care and make problems, taking time and attention from the ones that do. So the issue is not just about how much money. It's about who is spending it, how it will be spent, and will it make a difference. I want to finish up with a personal experience. I once interviewed for a principal position in a small town in central Illinois with a mostly Latino population. The superintendent told me right from the start that achievement scores and graduation rates were low. Frankly, most of the parents didn't care whether or not their kids graduated. Many were recent immigrants or maybe second generation. The kids were in school only because the law said so. When they were old enough, the kids were expected to go to work to support the family. The schools were old. But they were maintained pretty well and had everything that surrounding schools in the area did. More money may or may not have improved things. The biggest factor was people simply not caring. The CTU can scream all they want about more money. But what will it be spent on and will it change the attitudes of many in their communities? As others pointed out, it probably won't have much of an effect on underutilized schools. A bloated central office doesn't do much for classrooms. And teachers that care need students and parents that care. I don't think many of the young people sitting it out at home or running around in gangs care whether or not schools get more money.
I have come to know and respect several in this forum. Even when they disagree with me they know how to do it respectfully. Several have shown me up and I often deserve it. I bring this up because more than a few seem to be of my generation age wise and remember the Vietnam protests. It was a different atmosphere. Vietnam was hugely unpopular with a lot of people. Many that disagreed with protests and the tactics were still either against the war or the tactics being used. The problem with the Gaza protesters is that they don't hold the upper hand opinion wise. Israel and supporting them with weapons still has weight over Gazans and their Hamas benefactors. Many in this country don't separate oppressed Gazans from 9-11 terrorists. I have my own issues with the way Netanyahu is doing things. But that doesn't turn me either from Israel or our support for them to protect them from neighbors that wish them destroyed. That's where the real problem is for the protesters- they just don't have the popular support no matter how much they brag about the numbers in the street. In one respect, I am heartening by support by Israel. I'm also worried. How desperate will protesters get when they don't get their way, either in Congess or public opinion? This has been an issue in Europe for many years. People bomb things. They commit random acts of violence against innocents. They crave attention and look to instill fear in those that disagree with them. I know someone here will tell me it happens here. But it is not yet at levels seen elsewhere. So what will happen in Chicago before the week is out? The crowds so far are not even close to what organizers were predicting. The media seems to be yawning. Does that mean we are out of the woods? Or does it portend something violent to get the attention they have not yet achieved? I saw more than a few comments the past couple of weeks from protesters that said they would simply ignore restrictions. Did they mean it? How far are they willing to go? As we saw during the Vietnam era, there were always organizers willing to stir up supporters than sit back and watch others do bad things and get hurt. So after reading today's media accounts of peace and serenity, I am more vigilant than ever. The protesters didn't come to Chicago just to see Harris anointed.
Just now, bomb threats have been called into four downtown hotels the DNC is using.
Most likely fraudulent, but those people are scum!
Minor quibble about the discussion of the Monday protest demonstration. I agree with all you said about the demonstration, including the disappointing crowd size (especially when measured against the stated expectations). But the photo you posted showed the line to the six porta-potties, not of the demonstration itself. :)
I hope I'm not starting to beat a dead horse, but the view that "But rules need to be followed until they’re officially changed or overturned through the normal review process." sounds to me extreme and out of touch with reality. Reliance on a higher court to be the backstop requires way too much faith in the system for me, maybe due to having lived under a totalitarian regime or maybe just seeing the SCOTUS just throw to the wind a major moral principle with the presidential immunity ruling. I also know that it takes a heroic effort over many years and often a sacrifice of one's professional and financial life and relationships to go through the full process of overturning an unjust law.
My view is that every public official and every person on each level of the system should exercise moral judgement and do the right thing, and not follow rules blindly. Yes, it would lead to a clerk in Kentucky refusing to marry a gay couple, but she would be overruled by others acting morally. I just hope that if I'm the driver of Rosa Parks' bus I wouldn't call the cops on her for sitting in the wrong seat. And if I'm one of the cops I hope I wouldn't arrest her. If I'm in Poland in 1942 I hope I'd be brave enough to forge documents for some people or hide them or at the very least not follow the rules to report them. I'm probably Godwinning my own argument here, but it's an important example of a case where people should have thought for themselves and not blindly follow rules laid out for them.
Or hey that dark colored dude is drinking from the wrong water fountain.
EZ - you've heard/read me riff before on education and academic achievement. we differ on school choice, and that's ok [agree to disagree].
but, in criticizing [rightfully] mayor johnson's bald-faced [even with his goatee] attempt to coerce the CPS board to adopt budget busting [we agree] actions to support CTU contract demands, you provide a laundry list of sources to support your position that CPS needs more funding. and, given the size of CPS, i assume you mean LOTS more funding, as a little more funding would have neglgible impact.
accd'g to a google search the avg expenditure per CPS pupil was ~$18.3k. how much more funding do you believe is necessary?
on what would you spend a lot more funding to CPS? avg CPS teacher salary this school yr was $69.1k, 42% >nat'l avg. even allowing for cost & price diff's in urban areas, it seems CPS teachers are well-compensated. shd CPS teachers make a higher salary? better bene's? if so, why?
and where else would you spend the lots more $$ that you believe would increase academic achievement in CPS?
and please, forget about attacking school choice as a false or inadequate alternative - we've already agreed to disagree on that. you're the one making the argument that CPS needs a lot more $$ - assumedly to increase academic achievement [why else?].
i just want to know: how would you spend LOTS more $$, if it were available, to incr academic achievement significantly, especially among minority students from low income families, in CPS?