[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: a reflection on ESEA



Ken,

My mistake. I somehow got the impression that Bush was the president. Your
logic is compelling. I guess Gore is president now. Boy, some of these
newspapers and news shows are way off. They keep referring to President
Bush. They are really going to be embarassed when they grasp your logic and
realize that Gore is now the president.

----- Original Message -----
From: kber <kber@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: a reflection on ESEA


> George Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Ken,
> >
> > In case you didn't notice a Republican president was elected in 2000.
He
> > has approval ratings up in the eighties. Is it a shock that he is
> > implementing conservative policies? That is why he was elected.
>
> I'll respond to two of your posts at the same time, Mr. C.
>
> 1) Ashcroft's singing is hardly his role as Attorney General, which is
one
> aspect of why I forwarded it. But also, he can't sing very well. And
yet, if
> you remember, he feels that his dignity was being assailed by standing in
front
> of the statue of Justice. And, at least according to the Guardian story,
he
> has tried to impose his song upon employees, this after having all but
mandated
> that senior employees pray with him when he first arrived. He can be a
devout
> zoroastrian for all i care, but in his role as attroney general he should
not
> be imposing his personal views. Further, he promised to uphold the law,
> regardless of his personal views. Whic leads to
>
> 2) the positions taking legally by this adminstration, especially with
respect
> to hwo "suspected" terrorists have been hodl without access to counsel,
family,
> etc, for extended periods, often without being charged, is in iitself not
only
> a vilation of law, but gives justification to people who seize Americans
to
> treat them with lack of respect
> 3) Finally, you assume Bush was elected. Remember that even if he did
truly
> win the Florida vote (which under a fair interpretation of Flroida law, if
the
> undervotes werre counted, and if the legitimate overvotes where people
punched
> an wrote in the same name were counted [Florida law requires that a vote
be
> counted if the voter's intent can be clearly ascertained; and by the way,
> under a Texas law signed by Nush when governer indented chad ballots
counted
> when manually examined - so if Bush wants to impose Texas educational
standards
> maybe he should have been willing to live by texas voting standards], and
if
> all those whose registration was being challenged had been allowed as they
are
> supposedto be tunder Florid law to cast provisional ballots, there is
little
> doubt that Gore carries the state by in excess of 10,000 votes. Heck,
absent
> the overseas ballots which arrived late, which were allowed for 10 days
under a
> Federal court agreement that had applied to only one particular election
and
> which the Leon County judge was preparing to throw out before Ben Ginsberg
> wisely pulled the Republican law suit on the issue, Bush loses the state
by
> around 250 votes. Even absent all that (a) he trailed Gore by more than
half a
> million - in otherwords, Gore's popular vote margin was almost 5 times
that of
> Jack Kennedy (b) he lost seats in both the House and the Senate ---
thus
>
> he was not given a mandate for an extremely conservative stance, nor did
he
> campaign as an extreme conservative. So I find your remarks somewhat out
of
> line.
>
> Now, my remarks about Palmer and about the potential attack on the Bill of
> Rights are not made up out of whole clothe, or becaus I am some flaming
liberal
> - in many ways I am not. There are a fair number of even conservative
legal
> scholars who have questions both the actions of the administration and
some of
> the provisions of the Patriot act.
>
> having said all that, Mr. C, as I already noted in a previous response in
one
> of these threads, at least one of my posts was more than a little bit
tongue in
> cheek.
>
> Maybe the reason you couldn't grasp it was that it was expressed in
qualitative
> terms, and like many psychometricians, you can't handle anything you can't
> quantify?
>
> [btw - that is also a tongue in cheek, qualitative remark. So don't get
your
> shorts in a bunch].
>
>
> have a nice night.
>
>
> KB
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.