Jackson Free Press

Some people might find it confusing that so-called liberal Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., supported President George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act, and is pushing for "merit pay" during his presidential campaign, especially considering that Bush campaigned on the issue the first time around.

"Qualified teachers are the vanguard of education reform. With mastery of their subjects, a contagious enthusiasm for learning, and a heartfelt commitment to their students, they can make any school great. That is why I advocate merit pay for them and expanded opportunities for professional development," Bush said during the 2000 campaign.

So, what's the difference between Kerry and Bush on this issue? It's about the funding—and perhaps the motive. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act was signed into law in January 2000 after the administration promised dramatic increases in federal education funding to pay for its onerous and high-stakes testing requirements—and $400 million to give to states to fund merit pay if they wished. The act included "local control" language that encourages states and school districts to institute "merit pay" plans, which have been a policy darling of U.S. conservatives since the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision that forced schools to de-segregate and good teachers to flee, alongside resources and white families. President Richard Nixon started pushing for "accountability" in public schools that many in his party would just as soon see closed down. Nixon said then: "School administrators and school teachers alike are responsible for (children's) performance, and it is in their interest as well as in the interests of their pupils that they be held accountable."

The problem, of course, with many merit-pay plans, including Bush's, is that the funds are usually not there to help teachers achieve the high standards required—and, too often, "accountability" is a buzzword for not teaching anything conservatives disapprove of. In fact, "No Child Left Behind" has never been fully funded—many believe it was never intended to be—leaving districts scrambling to pay for its federal testing mandates, bleeding without the money to pay for Band-Aids as the date approaches when their schools can be shuttered for buckling under onerous and unfunded federal mandates.

So the difference in merit-pay plans often comes down to the motivation of the people pushing them: Are they trying to bleed the public schools of teachers and resources, or are they truly trying to attract better educators to public education? Is the merit pay plan coupled with strategies to pull resources out of the public schools, or to add to them? Put simply, are teachers being set up for failure or success?

Gov. Jim Hunt of North Carolina has been at the vanguard of compromise on merit pay—both supporting greater accountability and pushing for real resources to help achieve that accountability. He helped create a national system for board certification of teachers, including rewarding bonuses, which serves as a compromise with proponents of merit pay. And, like Kerry says he does, Hunt supports smart, well-funded merit-pay plans.

Gov. Haley Barbour announced at the Neshoba County Fair that Hunt would lead panel discussions about Mississippi's public schools this fall. Does this augur an era of education compromise in Mississippi?

Only time will tell.

Previous Comments

ID

77735

Comment

"The problem, of course, with many merit-pay plans, including Bushís, is that the funds are usually not there to help teachers achieve the high standards requiredóand, too often, ìaccountabilityî is a buzzword for not teaching anything conservatives disapprove of." So how is Kerry's plan different? His merit plan increases reliance on standardized test scores (as a measure of merit). I think you bring up one of the real issues but address it improperly: de-segregation. As Malcolm X pointed out, the problem isn't being in separate communities (as whites were in a separate community) but being controlled by an outside community--and that hasn't changed. After court ordered bussing--Mississippians debated amending the Constitution to abolish public education in MS (for obvious reasons)--instead they created their own private and public white schools (with federal funds paving the way for the creation of the 'suburbs'/white enclaves through subsidizing the increased transportation through expanded interstate construction and providing good home loans). Truly "desegregated" schooling would encompass at least two things: 1. Local control (over local matters, such as where students go) [the Republican call for local control is disingenious as standardized testing directly centralizes schooling] 2. Full and equal funding. The "equal funding" seems a minimum goal, but isn't funding by race about the same or maybe a little worse than 40 years ago? (So if progressives called for it, it would expose the Democrats as charlatans eh?) Seems like merit pay has many meanings...all of which are to distract from the minimum necessary education reform, unless you want to debate which crumbs from the bosses' table are better.

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-15T08:38:27-06:00

ID

77736

Comment

So how is Kerry's plan different? His merit plan increases reliance on standardized test scores (as a measure of merit). You'll note, Jason, that I didn't say Kerry's plan is better than Bush's, either, but it needs to be talked aboutóespecially since the superintendent is putting merit pay on the table in Mississippi. As all the rhetoric about whether he shot someone in the back or not decades ago swirls, some very important issues aren't getting enough attention. We ran this package to get people thinking about education and Kerry's plan, that strikes me as centrist reform that even conservatives can love at best and, as you say, union-busting at worst. (Not, I must add, that I think that the teachers' unions always have the students' best interests at heart. I've disagreed with them on several major points in recent years.) I certainly believe that any high-stakes reliance on standardized testing is a big mistake, no matter which party it comes from. That's one of the big New Democrat compromises that makes me distrust them so much, but that's a tangent. For me so far, I think "merit pay" sounds nice on paper, but the practice is filled with minefields. However, I'm open to hearing more ideas on it. Otherwise, your comments about de-segregation are insightful, and I remember that Malcolm X speech. I like it anytime people don't approach an issue as if it's in a vacuum, which is the typical approach these days. Personally, I believe the issues you bring up underlie the entire structure and mythology surrounding public education today. I'm working on a big story that will get into some of this more. Meantime, I appreciate your comments, andd welcome to the site.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-15T13:44:07-06:00

ID

77737

Comment

Yeah, I wasn't sure if you said it or not. You ask in it, "So, whatís the difference between Kerry and Bush on this issue?" and say it's about funding and motive--noting Bush lacks the former and imply his motive's probably bad. So the question leads one to believe the article will compare them...and since you argue Bush fails (and because JFP articles are mostly Democrat) and the other articles support Kerry, the issue as a whole certainly supports Kerry and you don't seem to attack that. Be that as it may, I wasn't clear where this column stood on the issue and didn't meant to necessarily imply it supported Kerry's plan. However, in your response, you call it a "centrist reform". I'm not sure how you meant that--since his merit plan relies on standardized testing as a measure and so will further that whole mess. Merit pay seems to me pretty clearly to be a political red herring from both parties that distracts from the real issue of full and equal funding for education. Your own paper notes research shows it has negative effects, even if it could work, schools should have the basic resources first and foremost, but instead the issue focuses on merit pay with the overall impression that it's a good thing (Kerry's plan is at least) and that the paper (probably) supports it. While just one article came right out in support of his plan, your article only attacks Bush (leaving Jonathan's arguments untouched)--contributing to this overall impression (whether intended or not, I think it's there). And as such, this issue plays into the red herring and serves to work for votes for Kerry...but not education.

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-15T19:24:56-06:00

ID

77738

Comment

Jason, different people read things differently, so I'm not challenging your impressions. I can only speak for my own intentions: The point of this package of stories is to raise questions: 1. a piece about Kerry's merit-pay strategy, which (frankly) surprised me a bit. That piece likes what he's doing, clearly, even if I'm skeptical. 2. Then, a piece talking about the fact that the state of Mississippi is considering merit-play plans, and raising cons that weren't raised in the Kerry piece. I then decided to add a quick sidebar to talk a bit more about the fact that Bush supported merit pay and how that could be, that he and Kerry were calling for the same thing. That's No. 3. Oh. And we also did the pros and cons. Guess that would be 4. ;-) Re comparison of Bush and Kerry plans: I'm not sure there is anything to compare, yet, beyond saying what Kerry wants to do and what Bush has already done. That's where (under)funding comes in. It should be clear that, however Kerry gets merit pay past the unions, if there's isn't a funding mechanism, it won't work any better than Bush's. But Kerry claims to be able to pay for it. BTW, my running the piece about Kerry's merit-pay plan isn't an endorsement of it. Far from it. Frankly, my jury is still out on it over all, although I lean toward your point about it being a "political red herring" from both sides. I'm willing to consider more information, though, as it unfolds. And I'm not done on the topic of education. I don't only run stories about issues once I've reached a final conclusion on them myself. Re "Democrat" articles in JFP: The only way you could argue this is to say that being critical of the Republican Party makes one a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat; in fact, I believe that New Democrats are responsible for much of the mess we're in now because of bad political compromises. That was actually the point of my "centrist" comment, although perhaps my point was too subtle. This assumption confounds me a bit: Republicans are in power in Mississippi, the White House and Congress (and arguably in the Supreme Court); yet, there is still an assumption that if you are critical of Republicans, that you are automatically a Democrat! So let's talk about the merits of the issue. I feel a bit like we're chasing our tails at the moment, but your thoughts on the issues themselves interest me greatly, and I'd be happy to continue that discussion.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-15T20:04:59-06:00

ID

77739

Comment

One more point, Jason: Reading back, I noticed how you took my "centrist reform" comment way out of context. You have to read the entire sentence to understand what I'm saying there: "We ran this package to get people thinking about education and Kerry's plan, that strikes me as centrist reform that even conservatives can love at best and, as you say, union-busting at worst." Again, perhaps I'm being too subtle, but my point there was that the *best* I see in Kerry's merit-pay plan so far is a "centrist" effort to appease conservatives (which, I also believe that the acceptance of high-stakes testing has been). That's not exactly high praise. ;-) That's very different from me saying, "Yea, isn't that a great centrist reform idea coming from Kerry!" It's not that I don't think being "centrist" can be a positive thing; it's just that the word itself has become so bastardized that it's nearly always about pure politics, and little else. So THAT was my context. Anyway, on to larger issues.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-15T20:22:21-06:00

ID

77740

Comment

thanks for responding. though we may be chasing our tails a bit, we haven't called each other names yet so it's going better than lots of internet impersonal discussions such as this (where I feel it's too easy to forget your opponent isn't just their positions). I knew the centrist reform comment wasn't meant as high praise, but by calling it a "reform" I thought it implied it would be a concrete gain of some sort in your eyes (even if tiny), so I'm still not sure what you mean by that then. Maybe the word "reform" struck a different note to my ears? "The only way you could argue this is to say that being critical of the Republican Party makes one a Democrat." To be brief, I would say that being critical of the Republicans in every issue without critizing the Democrats as stringently plus a constant encouragement of voting (esp. moreso than other activities), along with editorial notes about how the Democrats should be more progressive (implying we can make them so), concretely support the Democratic Party with votes, even if you're not a Democrat. Take this issue: that sidebar on jobs ("it's the jobs silly [sillly bush-voter?]"; a pro-Kerry merit plan argument with no counterargument; and your column which bashed Bush but didn't clearly note he and kerry weren't different (you seemed to imply their motives were different, though perhaps only to an unattentive reader). What does that all add up to in the political context of the November election and the Anybody But Bush movement? I'm not saying all of this is your intention (though I think it's pretty clear that most of the JFPers are ABBers...ugh, silly acronyms). I didn't meant to imply you agreed with the articles you published or whatever, but that the concrete effect of the issue I think is pretty clearly to make Kerry look better than Bush on education. And you may personally lean to it being a "red herring" but there was nary a word of that but there was a whole issue about it...thereby making the issue part of that red herring. "So let's talk about the merits of the issue. I feel a bit like we're chasing our tails at the moment, but your thoughts on the issues themselves interest me greatly, and I'd be happy to continue that discussion." Thanks. I am glad to hear your feedback, as it's been thoughtful and all that good stuff. If by issue you mean merit pay, I fail to see any merit in it (no pun intended): your sidebar notedresearch shows it has negative effects on the whole and one of the articles noted it's lower on teacher priority lists than say decent resources to work with in the school. kerry's being based on standardized testing makes it just completely worthless, funding or no funding. so merit pay as a whole--but esp. kerry's plan--strikes me a red herring (because it does sound good and merit pay probably has a kernel of truth to it). A red herring from what?--that our schools already don't have enough money, that they're not going to get more, and that people are mad and collectively could act to get more, so they need to be distracted and pacified and corralled into electoralism. there aren't hundreds of thousands in the streets about this yet, but i think you can smell it coming, and getting people to consider voting for kerry who doesn't truly promise anything decent (much less will believably deliver) is a diversion (notice also the dormant anti-occupation movement).

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-16T08:07:21-06:00

ID

77741

Comment

The reason this is important to me is that I think Kerry's going to win, and when he does, if history is any indication a lot of those people are going to demobilize (despite the rhetoric of continuing on to push Kerry), but that victory won't be a concrete victory at all--Kerry's hardly promising us more than Bush is, and I don't think he will (be able) to deliver on that which he has promised (he's already renegged on the college plan, though despite continuing to mention it in talks to college students, for instance). And so what'll happen to all these people putting their hope in Kerry (though I know many are doing it critically)? Without a strong alternative that they know of, they'll be demoralized. And so I think the ABB movement is extremely dangerous, and there's a strong chance it'll implode no matter who wins in November.

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-16T08:07:37-06:00

ID

77742

Comment

we haven't called each other names yet so it's going better than lots of internet impersonal discussions such as this I won't call you a name unless you call me one first. ;-P Seriously, I'm on the fly here, so not much time to chat; it's press day for a big issue today. Re "reform": My simply using that word does not imply endorsement. In fact, the words "education reform" have come to mean anything but positive moves for public education IMHO, which I suspect you'd agree with. So, no, it wasn't a Kerry endorsement. As for the not-a-Republican-therefore-a-Dem argument (or criticize-Bush-therefore-love-Kerry argument)--I just find that reasoning frustrating and a waste of time (and an either-or strategy that plays directly into extremists' hands. Right now, the extremists are on the right and in power, so I think that skews your analysis a bit .) I don't think much about the "anybody but Bush" concept--I can imagine a few folks who would be worse--but no doubt, I think the re-election of George W. Bush is a very scary proposition; I can't imagine what would happen without the threat of re-election (or maybe I can). By the end of the four years, for instance, there might not be public education left to reform, and I'm only being mildly hyperbolic. If "motive" is what you're after, go find the original "No Child Left Behind" language, and tell me it wasn't written to gut the public schools. (Actually, I'm not sure how you can read the current language, and not believe that, but the compromises with Kennedy and Bush's un-kept promise to fully fund the bill yielded a kinder, gentler education bill. For the moment.) I also am not jumping up and down over Kerry. But I am not of the camp that believes that Americans should allow the very foundations of our country to be ripped apart, with the reelection of Bush, because Kerry is "nearly as bad." (Nader's argument, for instance.) The truth is, recent public debate in the country has gone so awry (blame the corporate media, if you will) that we have a very radical right president in office. No, Kerry is not the perfect alternative. Reforming much of the system, and better informing the public and engaging them more, and getting some corporate welfare "reform" (grin) in place, etc., is vital to the future of our democracy, no matter who is elected. I believe that will be somewhat easier without Bush in office, but it'll still be hard work. Therefore, to me, sending Bush back to Crawford is the beginning of the struggle, not the end. It's gotten so bad that Kerry's "promises" of what he will do is almost less appealing than what he won't do, or who he won't try to appoint to the Supreme Court, or the countries he will not alienate as badly as Bush has. I regret that the stakes are such that we need to vote for a president based on what he won't do, but they are, and we have to play the hand we've dealt ourselves.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-16T10:45:48-06:00

ID

77743

Comment

MORE Now, does that mean that we don't discuss and consider what Kerry is promising, such as merit pay for teachers? Hell, no. That's the point. I don't believe we should allow this to become an either-or nation: either you're a radical-right Republican, or you're a Democrat. Either you're for Bush, or you love Kerry. Either you support everything Bush wants, or you drink all of Kerry's Koolaid. And so on. I don't think Americans are given enough credit, and thus don't take it for themselves. We can hold two thoughts at once, which in essence is what this package of stories is trying to do: We can be critical of a radical-right president, and we can question what an alternative to that president wants to do and try to influence it before it happens without us paying attention. And we'd better. If Kerry is elected without people paying attention to his education plans, he may be able to push through his ideas without any public debate, much as Bush did with No Child Left Behind. That, in all of its rapid incohesiveness, is all for today, Jason. I enjoy talking with you, but must go into deadline mode. So don't think I'm ignoring you if you don't hear from me back for a day or two.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-16T10:45:58-06:00

ID

77744

Comment

I forgot this one above before I hit submit: I didn't meant to imply you agreed with the articles you published or whatever, but that the concrete effect of the issue I think is pretty clearly to make Kerry look better than Bush on education. You're jumping to very easy conclusions here, Jason. Think about it for a minute: Ignoring for a moment the copy we ran about the negatives of merit pay, why would I run a ra-ra story about Kerry's very debatable views on merit pay to make him "look better than Bush on education"? That logic would only work with those who already believe in merit pay, perhaps. The point, which you're missing, is to encourage people to get past the deceptive liberal-vs.-conservative, Rep-vs.-Dem rhetoric and consider the issues themselves and think and discuss them, no matter what you think of the candidates. I'm really gone now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-16T10:58:29-06:00

ID

77745

Comment

(i see the "centrist reform" thing was a misunderstanding on my party, and i understand about press days and all that--and i was occupied the past few days myself) as for your second comment about being able to critically discuss both bush and kerry, i agree that should be done. and your next (third) comment ties into this: "why would I run a ra-ra story about Kerry's very debatable views on merit pay to make him "look better than Bush on education"? That logic would only work with those who already believe in merit pay, perhaps" The lead article on merit pay concluded thusly: "The candidate [Kerry] has put his finger on the next big challenge in America's campaign to reform education, and seems to have figured out a way for the federal government to fix the problem." So I fail to see how what I said is jumping to an easy conclusion. I'm really not sure where you're getting the impression that I'm arguing "not-a-Republican-therefore-a-Dem argument". my argument was to take that issue as an example, look at that lead article on education "reform" with no counterargument (along with your column that essentially just bashes Bush and doesn't mention Kerry past the first paragraph), and see that on a whole the issue would encourage voters to choose Kerry (which is not to see the issue is all democrat and doesn't in anyway encourage anything beyond two-party thinking, but kerry looks a lot better than bush in the issue). "I am not of the camp that believes that Americans should allow the very foundations of our country to be ripped apart, with the reelection of Bush, because Kerry is "nearly as bad."" What exactly has Bush done to rip apart the country that Kerry hasn't wholeheartedly supported? The Patriot Act, going to war with Iraq (which Kerry says he would've done still despite the lies), rounding up immigrants? Those to me are probably the three biggest issues, and Kerry actively supports them. Has he been campaigning against them, organizing people to stop them? Nope. So what exactly will a Kerry victory accomplish? Will he overturn the Patriot Act, the unconstitutional and anti-homosexual federal protection of marriage act (oops, that was clinton, not bush, my bad), release whatever untold numbers of uncharged immigrants we have somehwere, and end the occupation of iraq and palestine? nope. it will accomplish a demobolization of activists because of precisely the logic you present (that kerry will change things)...as we can see right now, as i noted the anti-war movement seems to have gone into hibernation for the campaign of warmongering candidate from Team B. it's all well and good to say, first get rid of bush, and then push kerry. but things have a way of working out in certain ways despite the best of all intentions, and i'm saying that we can see what's happening right now under kerry's campaign. um, but it'll take more time and space than a comment to expose the whole fraud of the democratic party and electoralism. you sure liked comparing obama to malcolm x, which is kinda sick, since malcolm taught us 40 years ago that voting for the democrats is a political con game; and the last 40 years should've proved that even more (just look at clinton's term, "tough on crime"--doubling the prison population, cutting welfare and that bastardly workfare stuff, all the abortion clinics closing without a protest, paving the way military and with policy for invading iraq)

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-19T09:33:22-06:00

ID

77746

Comment

So I fail to see how what I said is jumping to an easy conclusion. Jason, your argument is jumping all over the place. We can stipulate that the lead article was in favor of Kerry's plan! (We have, in fact.) That's not what we were just discussing. Above, we were discussing the package over all. *sigh* I'm really tired of going in circles with you over your beliefs about my motives, and won't after this posting. It is wasting my time. I've said repeatedly that the the point of this mixture of stories is to get people thinking about the candidates' *education* plans--neither of which do I believe are stellar, although I'm open to new info on them--and talk about their merits. Beyond that, believe what you makes you feel good. What exactly has Bush done to rip apart the country that Kerry hasn't wholeheartedly supported? The Patriot Act, going to war with Iraq (which Kerry says he would've done still despite the lies), rounding up immigrants? For someone who seems to think outside the box, you're drinking the Koolaid on how Kerry's comments and votes show that he is "no different" from Bush. That's exactly what the radical right wants folks like you to think--so maybe *you* think you're being radical, but I think you're playing right into their gameplan (reminds me of Republicans helping Nader). They want folks like you, especially over in the swing states, to stay home because, of course, Kerry is just like Bush on the issues that matter, and neither one is good enough for someone with such high standards. To everyone else, of course, they want to present him as a radical liberal. I'm not even going to sit and delineate the potential differences between a Bush and Kerry administration, even as Kerry isn't my ideal candidate. It is easy to see and figure out if you don't already have your mind made up. And you don't even have to move beyond the issue of potential appointments to the Supreme Court for the most important issue at stake to anyone who cares about the future. I've said repeatedly on the site that I don't think Kerry is perfect, and I sure as hell had problems with Clinton and any friggin' "New Democrat." But I, unlike you, believe that under a Kerry administration we can salvage some of what's been lost, and keep from losing more. Is that the end-all? Of course not. If people don't take this administration as a warning sign and get to some diligent grass-roots organizing, and taking back of the parties, or building new ones, then we're in trouble for a long time to come. However, I believe in working from within the system, and that we have to do damage control even as we push for more substantive change. If not, we may lose the tools to even effect that change (you know, the FBI right now "visiting" people who might protest the GOP convention, and Florida operatives "investigating" blacks in Florida who "might" commit voter fraud, etc.). There is a lot at stake right now. Maybe you think it'll work itself out if we all just disengage and wait for something better to come along, that's more to our liking, but I don't.e.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-19T10:29:04-06:00

ID

77747

Comment

MORE you sure liked comparing obama to malcolm x, which is kinda sick, You are the master of ignoring context, Jason! I said his "demeanor" reminded me of Malcolm, which it did, and that it sounded like "every word out of his mouth mattered," which it did. I wasn't comparing their ideologies. I'm sorry if you think such an observation is "sick." Please. I've read every word of Malcolm's speechesóseveral timesóand I realize there are a couple of differences (grin) between him and Obama. However, I suspect from your comments that you may not be seeing some of the nuances in Malcolm's words, or be clear that his ideology had changed, depending on your perspective) a great deal by the time that he was murdered. It amuses me how everyone wants a piece of him nowókind of like Jeffersonóquoting him selectively, depending on their motives. (just look at clinton's term, "tough on crime"--doubling the prison population, cutting welfare and that bastardly workfare stuff, all the abortion clinics closing without a protest, paving the way military and with policy for invading iraq) Agreed. But re-electing Bush isn't exactly going to help turn back those issues. If the best we get with Kerry is a moratorium on such idiocy, I'll take it. It's a sad state we're in but, as I said, it's a start. Jason, I'm happy to discuss these issues with you, but if you insist on hectoring, I'm just not going to continue engaging with you. I don't have time nor motivation to wade through attempts to unveil nefarious schemes that aren't there or to defend my words clearly lifted out of context, in order to flesh out your kernels of attempts to talk about issues. And I know from past experience that those kinds of defensive dialogues drive other people away from the site, so it's counter-productive.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-19T10:29:24-06:00

ID

77748

Comment

maybe i've been unclear in some way, but i don't think i've been unfair to you. i have not accused you of "nefarious schemes" nor have I ever questioned your motive ("your beliefs about my motives"). i too was discussing the overall package (of which the lead article is a key piece), and you simply refuted a straw man ("not-a repub must be dem"). "I've said repeatedly that the the point of this mixture of stories is to get people thinking about the candidates' *education* plans" ok, and i agreed you did that in my last comment basically. what i said was that the lead article having a pro-kerry argument without someone critiquing that argument, plus some pro v con stuff, and then your piece that spent 90% of its words bashing Bush, take all that and you have an issue that will 9 times out of 10 encourage people to support kerry (essentially, the overall effect makes kerry's education plan look better than bush's, and that's a good reason to vote for him). that's what i've been saying since my first post (and have explicitly said it wasn't about your motivation or intent, a charge which you level at least twice). so where are you claiming i'm attacking your "motives"? where have i mentioned them, except to say that's not what i'm talking about? "you're drinking the Koolaid on how Kerry's comments and votes show that he is "no different" from Bush" i wasn't aware there was a nefarious scheme from the radical right to present kerry as no better than bush, and have seen no evidence for it. however, you're dodging the question. you claimed bush is ripping up the foundations of the country. i put forward what i considered to be the three most important examples of that and noted kerry supports them. you accuse me of drinking koolaid. i made no claims of kerry and bush being the same or anything of the sort, i said that on those issues kerry support bush's policies. and i said i saw them as three of the most important issues. so: does or does not kerry support bush on those issues (is he campaigning against the patriot act and apologizing for voting for it, is he campaigning against the occupation of iraq and apologizing for voting for it, is he campaigning for the release of all immigrants rounded up and apologizing for it)? and, are these issues not three of the most important and foundational ones? further, is not the anti-war movement taking a hiatus for the campaign of a warmongering candidate? (Why Iíve Stopped Protesting and Started Registering Voters, http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0806-06.htm) "taking back of the parties" when were the parties "ours"? "If not, we may lose the tools to even effect that change" the example you cite stems from policies close to the heart of clinton (the anti-terrorism act thingy) and kerry (the patriot act), so i fail to see what your point is i didn't mean to imply you were comparing their ideologies (ie didn't take anything out of context), but i still think it's sick to compare obama to someone who'd call him a political con man. i know malcolm's ideology evolved...but when did it evolve into being conned by the democrats for support pray tell, and if that's not what you mean, that why exactly are you accusing me of not understanding him? you lay into me for my malcolm quoting (implying i'm quoting him selectively)...so please point out to me how i'm wrong that malcolm opposed the Democratic Party. then you quote me noting clinton's terrible policies, and you say "re-electing bush wont' help" and then say "If the best we get with Kerry is a moratorium on such idiocy, I'll take it" this really should stand on it's own. kerry will bring a moratorium on the idiocy he and clinton created and/or voted for?

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-19T11:23:46-06:00

ID

77749

Comment

i'm not taking your quotes out of context. the nature of this forum is short and quick replies that apparently make it easy for it to appear quotes are taken out of context--just because i only quote part of what you say doesn't mean i didn't read the rest. give me a concrete example and i'll retract the above statement. the request may seem hypocritcal or annoying of me to you since you might feel as if you have done this already, but it's difficult to respond to every charge in a forum like this. even if you feel this is hypocritical, if i take so much out of context, it shouldn't be hard to find just one example. also, you're saying i'm hectoring you...as opposed to repsonding to your arguments i guess. so i propose that if you still want to cut communication with me, you give me (and the readers) one last chance by listing a few key issues or questions you feel i'm evading or that you want me to answer. then it'll be easier for readers of the site to determine if i'm just a troll that's not worth your time. as for hectoring, you said: "Maybe you think it'll work itself out if we all just disengage and wait for something better to come along" i felt really angry when i read that, esp. after being accused of all the various things you accused me of. this is a false dichotomy (either you support kerry to change things or you support waiting) and/or a straw man (that there are other options, but i support waiting). however, i have never said anything of the sort, and have actually said above: "people are mad and collectively could act to get more, so they need to be distracted and pacified and corralled into electoralism. there aren't hundreds of thousands in the streets about this yet, but i think you can smell it coming, and getting people to consider voting for kerry who doesn't truly promise anything decent (much less will believably deliver) is a diversion (notice also the dormant anti-occupation movement)." perhaps my analysis is wrong, but you ignored it and implied i believe in "waiting." i've promised to admit i was wrong if you can show me how i took a quote out of context or ignored your argument, and i hope you'll do the same. as far as i can tell, your claim that i believe in "waiting" could only be called "hectoring."

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-19T11:26:18-06:00

ID

77750

Comment

Jason, I'm chasing my tail here. You took both the "centrist reform" comment, and my Malcolm-Obama comments on other postings out of context, trying to present them both as something they weren't, seemingly to ultimately prove a point about *why* I ran the merit-pay packageóthe "motive" that you have spent much of your time here talking about. Your points here are unclear to me and seem inconsistent, but we probably simply have different discussion styles, so let's just leave it here on this particular thread, for my part. We can discuss a different issue at some point.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-19T11:34:45-06:00

ID

77751

Comment

"You took both the "centrist reform" comment, and my Malcolm-Obama comments on other postings out of context, trying to present them both as something they weren't" as for "centrist reform", throughout the discussion i said i was unclear what you meant by it and then apologized for misunderstanding (because i had taken the word "reform" to mean a positive change, which is what it both denotes and connotes, and so I fail to see how that has anything to do with "taking it out of context" and not you using a word obscurely/subtley/whatever). as for Malcolm-Obama, you assumed I meant their ideologies, which would be a possible interpretation, but i did not say that nor mean to imply it. putting your statement in context, it was the context of praising Obama, and so I took the comparision as further praise in context, and thought it was sick to use Malcolm to praise someone he would call a political con man. now, we can disagree about whether it was sick or not--but just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean i took it out of context, as i never said nor meant to imply you were talking about their ideologies. and i've already told you this and yet you still bring it up. "seemingly to ultimately prove a point about *why* I ran the merit-pay packageóthe "motive" that you have spent much of your time here talking about" i have been arguing *what* the effects of the package are, regardless of you *motive* or *why* you ran them. i didn't say you intended for the package to support kerry, i argued it *did* and specifically said it didn't have to do with your motive (for instance, i said "whether intended or not, I think it's there"). i just posted above that i said nothing about your motivations, which you had accused me of doing, and challenged you to provide evidence, which you haven't done. i have never once talked about your motivation (except to say i wasn't talking about it, if that counts), and i will admit i'm wrong if someone can find one example of me doing so. you also accused me of hectoring you (without one example), but when i seem to have caught you red handed, you can't find the time to respond. you attacked me for saying something you had no reason to think i believed and something i had contradicted on this very forum thread. so, for the readers of the site, do you think you can find the 10 minutes to back up what you're saying?

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-19T14:30:28-06:00

ID

77752

Comment

MY SUMMARY OF THIS DISCUSSION My main argument has been what I started saying in my first post, that the issue of "merit pay" is a red herring designed to distract from the real and central issue of full and equal funding for education. And that Kerry's plan (funded or not) is worthless because it's unionbusting, relies on bogus standardized testing, and most of all, it's a red herring. Further, I argued that since 1) the JFP issue's lead article supported Kerry's plan, since 2) it had some pro and con discussion of merit pay in general but it did not present a counterargument to the lead article, and 3) Ladd's column essentially supported Bush by not taking a clear stand on Kerry's policy and by spending virtually all the column bashing Bush but certainly didn't refute the pro-kerry argument or denounce the issue as a red herring (though the column was confusingly written to me and as such, I didn't know or pretend to know the author's intention, just what I perceive as what the majority of JFP readers will take from it) THAT I thought the issue would serve to encourage people to vote for Kerry and concomitantly was a red herring distracting from the real issue of full and equal funding for education (whether the editor or author's intended this effect or not). Ladd's reply was essentially to characterize my argument as "the not-a-Republican-therefore-a-Dem argument (or criticize-Bush-therefore-love-Kerry argument)" [which I consider a straw man argument] and then later to argue that I was trying to discover a "nefarious scheme" and argue about her "motive" in publishing the articles [a claim I deny and she has to this point refused to provide evidence for]. side issues: Is Kerry better than Bush? That the Democrats are the proverbial lesser evil is something much asserted but rarely argued--and I think never proved. The Democrats appear better, but their real content is not I believe. And Malcolm X agreed with me back in the 60's. Ladd in the post on Aug 19, 04 | 11:29 am implied I didn't understand Malcolm and was selectively quoting him, and I asked what she meant and to back up her claim (that I thought she was implying but perhaps not) that Malcolm didn't oppose supporting the Democrats. She also accuses me of "out of context" quoting. I challenged her for examples and she gave 2 that I had already responded to. In one, she used a word "incorrectly" (in a way contrary to its dictionary definition and normal usage) and so I was confused, and when she clarified, I admitted I had misunderstood what she meant. To her, this constituted "taking the quote out of context". In the other case, she made a (not unreasonable) assumption about something I meant, which would've been taking what she said out of context--but her assumption was wrong and I told her that, but she persisted in saying I took the statement out of context. She then accused me of hectoring her. I can't respond because she didn't provide an example. However, she accused me of believing that we should disengage and wait for things to get better, despite her, for one, having no reason to think I thought that, and moreover, actually having said something completely different above. She ignored that in her next post, though I have admitted when I was wrong and will continue to do so when such charges are backed up.

Author

jason

Date

2004-08-19T14:48:00-06:00

ID

77753

Comment

Jason, can I do your laundry, too, sometime in the next day or two? I think I have 10 minutes somewhere in here to do whatever you'd like when you'd like it. (Kidding, sort of.) Dude, there are plenty of examples all over the site of what I don't like about these two men, and why I, and many others, think Bush is taking the country into the toilet. At this point, you've become a troll, not because of your beliefs and your talk about the issues themselves, which is interesting, but because you're trying to pick a fight. And I'm simply not going to fight with you. So, truce, Jason--it really is OK for us to disagree. We have different ideological bents, although I must say it's kind of funny to be hammered from the left this time around. You've outed me: I'm just not for tearing it all down and starting all over again. Now everyone sees my shitty cred as a revolutionary. ;-) Now. Please stop trolling here for a fight.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-08-19T15:19:00-06:00