2/1 The State of the Union offers the president the chance to show off
his best and argue his case to a national (and international)
audience. It is also an occasion for http://TNR.com to make its case to
you, our reader. Simply put, The New Republic Online provides you
with the most insightful, original, and intelligent analysis of last
night's speech. In this important election year, we feel that the
press's job is to report honestly, to hold Democrats accountable,
and to provide our readers with the ability to understand events
being discussed and, more important, those that are not. We strongly
urge you to subscribe today, for as little as $9.97, so you won't
miss out on the timely, comprehensive analysis that can be found both
online and in our weekly print edition.
\_ The press's job is to hold one party responsible?
\_ The press's job is to maximize profits for their shareholders.
\_ They say "accountable" for what it's worth. Anyway, this is
at least honest unlike, say, the NYT which is a biased crap
paper that pretends to be straight.
\_ It has to be that it pretends. It never even tries, right?
Yes, honesty is so virtuous. You know, if some corrupt
politician was honest about it, I think we should love that.
After all, all politicians are corrupt. So the one being
honest about his corruption must be better than the rest.
\_ There's a world of difference between political corruption
and news reporting. They are apples and oranges. I would
prefer that each news source I'm reading tells me flat
out they have a particular bias so I can judge the source
with that in mind rather than assuming they're straight
and *maybe* finding out later they're not.
\_ What is the NYT biased towards?
\_ If this is a reference to media being liberal leaning,
then I think you should ask why that is the case.
Most conservatives (i.e. read uneducated farmers in the
Most conservatives (i.e. most likely uneducated farmers in the
Mid-West who carried Bush in 2004) are totally unread in
terms of current events and what happens in the world. Nor
are they particularly well-educated about America and it's
history (both the good and the bad). I mean, seriously,
if everyone were equally educated on the circumstances
of Iraq, Bush wouldn't have been able to continually spout
that Iraq and Al-Quaida were related for 4+ years. I knew
that before the war started. What percentage of Bush
supporters knew that? How bout know that today?
that Iraq and Al-Quaida are linked for 4+ years. (They
weren't linked at the start of the war, but obviously
they are now. Al Quaida took it upon themselves to fight us
whereever we go.) Now I knew all of this before the war
started. How many Bush supporters can say that? How about
even today, 5 years after the start of the war?
Perhaps there's your answer for why respected organizations
like the NY Times are "liberal".
\_ Wow, this is wrong in so many ways... where to start?
The midwest is just dumb farmers and all the coastal
people are smart because they're well educated? CA has
one of the *worst* public education systems in the
country. You have to go to the deep south into the poorest
areas to find a shittier school system. Have you ever even
met someone educated in the mid-west? Your elitist little
cliche is bullshit. As far as Iraq/Osama links are
concerned, if you were so edjumakaited like you are then
you'd know there was contact in both directions for years
and there's still hundreds of thousands of untranslated
intelligence documents slowly being read through that may
provide more light on this subject. This is not in any
way, shape or form a done deal. Only the ignorant and
unread would believe that. Now I've know that for years.
How many NYT koolaid drinkers can say that? How about
even today, 5 years (not really but I'll go along with
your ignorance on this point) after the start of the war?
Actually, no, I won't go along with it. You don't even
know how long it's been since we attacked Iraq and you
hold yourself up as some elitist uber genius. Please
do all the smart people a favor and stay home for future
elections. It is the least you can do for your country.
\_ California post-secondary institutions are still the
best in the world. Our high schools are not so hot,
but not as bad as you portray. The percentage of
our population that is college educated is pretty
high. -not the guy you are replying to
Oh, and if you are still trying to make a case for
the Cheney/Wolfowitz line that SH and Al Qaeda were
close buddies, you really have no business accusing\
someone else of being a kool-aide drinker.
close buddies, you really have no business accusing
someone else of being a kool-aide drinker.
\_ Not so hot but not as bad? Seriously, go to another
state, find some average middle class mid westerners,
talk to their children. CA kids are totally hosed.
Cheney/Wolfy: I'm only saying what I said: there are
a zillion documents that remain untranslated and
there was some contact between them for many years.
I make no claims beyond what is known.
\_ Both of you seem to have neglected the fact that
the Midwest has more swing voters than just
about anywhere. Kerry could have fucked a goat,
and he'd have taken New England and California,
and Bush could have fucked a goat and he'd have
taken the deep south and texas, but those
midwestern states tend to be up for grabs.
\_ Oh contraire, mon frere! :-) I never said the
midwest was conservative nor stupid. I said
their kids are getting a much better education
than CA kids are getting. Since my debate
buddy, the elitist, tells us that education =>
smart voter, those smart mid westerners are
not in anyone's pocket, and thus swing voters,
as you say.
\_ K-12 is definitely better in the mid-West,
which I know from the studies as well as
personal experience. post-secondary is
better here, that is my point.
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
Has liberal New England and Minnesota
the highest, The Southwest and The South
at the bottom.
\_ Uni's take students from all over the
country, including those 'dum hiks' from
the midwest who went to better k-12
schools. So a mid westerner has a better
k-12 and at least as good a uni edu.
\_ Now you're just being fucking retarded.
So, because people from a region can
go to school at the top universities
go to school at the top universtities
which are mostly in New England, all
of those places have "top post
secondary education"? Ok. So every
sedondary education"? Ok. So every
poor African nation that sends a few
kids a year to Harvard now gets to
claim Harvard as part of their
education system? I'm not going to
disagree with you about the k-12
thing, but you've strayed into kooky
land here.
\_ Stop being obtuse. Unis are
nationwide. Especially odd of you
to name Harvard since they truly
pick and choose from the country
and a bit from the rest of the
world. Where'd you get the stupid
idea that living geographically
near to Harvard makes you more
likely to get accepted? The entire
US gets to claim Harvard as part of
the educational system as well as
every other top tier school, which
are all taking students from the
entire country. Maybe *you* chose
Berkeley because you lived in
Oakland or something but most
do this thing called "going away
to college" which involves travel
beyond the Jones' farm and it is
even further away than Next Town
Over for most. You can blather
all you like with ad hominen but
you consistently fail to adhere
to the same reality the rest of
the country lives in. At least
you figured out the midwest has
superior k-12 schools so there's
some hope for you.
\_ So are you saying that CA
is subsidizing its world class
universities for the benefit of
students from other states? I
\_ Wasn't the topic. I said
nothing about who paid what.
But since we're here, out
of staters pay a much higher
rate. Unimportant. Shrug.
disagree. Not only is tuition
cheaper for CA residents, but UC
is mandated to accept the top
percentage of CA grads. An
\_ Not seeing where you're
going with this. Are we
subsidizing out of staters
or are they subsidizing us?
out-of-state student who
performs better in high school
than an equivalent CA student
may still not get in to take
advantage of the superior
college-level schooling.
\_ Priority is given to UC as
a whole. The gem of the
system, Berkeley, takes
whoever the hell they want.
I still don't see what this
has to do with anything.
\_ Point being that
someone educated
in CA has a better
chance of getting
into (and affording)
a UC education than a
"better-educated"
out-of-stater.
Therefore, it is not
correct to claim that
UC belongs to everyone
equally.
Last I knew Berkeley takes the top ~3% of CA students, the _/
other UCs take the top ~5-7% (I dont remember exactly) and
fill out the rest of their spots from out of staters. To get
into UC, you already have to be top notch, at least compared
to the other educationally challenge k-12ers you went to
school with. Yes, UC will have fewer spots for OoSers but
UC isn't the only good system available for all those sharp
mid-western educated k-12 kids who already have a step up in
life on public school edjumkaited CA k-12ers. There are also
plenty of decent schools in the midwest. You don't have to go
to Cal to get a good education and frankly most people will do
better in life with a 4.0 from almost any reasonable 4 year
school than the lower grades they're likely to get from Cal
and they won't have to work as hard to get that higher GPA.
I did k-8 somewhere else and then moved here. Getting into
UC wasn't terribly difficult when so much of the competition
had trouble keeping their pencils inside the bubbles on the
SAT. ;-) |
http://csua.com/feed/