Actually, I was taught that, in designing multiple choice questions, rarely have "all of the above" and never have "none of the above."

Posted at December 27, 2006 12:27 PM in response to Tipping Bush

I don't think a two-year cycle is the way to look at it. Bush's popularity has been steadily declining since 9/11.

The first major downslope was in spring 2004, with Abu Ghraib and the first battle of fallujah. During the second half of 2004 Bush's popularity rose moderately, probably due to dumping on Kerry followed by a small post-election surge. From Jan 2005 on there has been steady decline. But the events in the sping of 2004 are major; they belong on any list marking the begining of the end.

Posted at December 26, 2006 3:21 PM in response to Event of the (Two) Year (Cycle)?

There are some surprises in spending per year per pupil (from recent googling that I have done):

1. New York City is fairly high (>$10,000) but is far exceeded in the NY suburbs. For example, in Westchester and Putnam counties the median school district spends about $19,000. The top $26,000. The lowest, $14,000.

2. Newark, I believe has a fairly high cost per pupil compared to the rest of New Jersey (I haven't checked this directly).

3. Private schools in the NY city area cost about $30,000 per pupil per year.

Where I live, in New Jersey suburbs, with very careful spending by the school administration it costs about $14,000 per year per pupil. I think this provides a low-budget education. There are no frills, teachers are reasonbly paid and class sizes ar 20 to 25. But the end result is mediocre due to spending constraints.

My feeling is that money is necesary, but not sufficient, to get a quality education. Overall, we don't spend enough in the k-12 sector. We spend much more per year for college education, and the results are much better.

Posted at May 13, 2006 4:52 PM in response to About Those Vouchers

Your reference to 'slam dunk' raises a question. What is the likelihood that George Tenet really said that the case for WMD in Iraq was a 'slam dunk'. Personally, I strongly doubt it. The reference comes for Woodward's book. Although Woodward doesn't reveal the source, it was almost certainly Bush, probably with seconding from Tenet. Bush obviously is a liar with an agenda. Tenet would have gone along in lapdog manner.

What do you think?

Posted at April 9, 2006 7:51 AM in response to George Bush, A Slam Dunk Liar

Deficits appear to matter to Larry Kudlow. Over on the REALclearpolitics blog tonight he says ...

"Gregg has thrown in the towel on mandatory spending cuts because he says he doesn't have the votes. Well then, I don't think that the American people should "have the votes" to keep the Republicans in charge of the Senate--or the House for that matter."

Posted at March 15, 2006 8:02 PM in response to Deficits Don't Matter

In the 2004 campaign the only substantive difference between Kerry's plan and Bush's was that Kerry would have committed to no permanent US bases in Iraq. BushCo has never made any statement I am aware of about the permanence of US deployment. They almost certainly plan permanent bases, and they probably feel this is a critical war aim. Certainly, stating an intention of a permanent US presence would not be popular in the Arab world. 
This is an important distinction and should be broadly discussed. 

Posted at December 10, 2005 9:18 AM in response to What to believe about Iraq

An additional question: who redacted the NIE?
As I understand it, the reason for redacting the NIE is to remove classified or sensitive material. 
But, as I understand the NIE from autumn 2002, the differences between the redacted and unredacted versions were more related to balance than sensitive data. Why, for example, is the fact that there were dissenting views to various allegations a sensitive issue? 
The question I have is who did the redacting; more specifically, who gave the redactors their marching orders?

Posted at November 20, 2005 3:41 PM in response to Bob Graham on the NIE

"... gives the insurgents every incentive to wait it out". 
Let's hope they do, if "wait it out" means decrease the current level of attacks. If the insurgents wait it out this gives Iraq a window to get things settled, form a stable government, etc. It gives  the governement a time window to prove to Iraqis that they can do it, and a window for Iraqis to choose the governement over the insurgents. 
Setting a timeline also gives notice to the Iraqi government that they had better get things in order before we leave. Without a time for pullout, their incentive is to stall. 
Finally, setting a timeline legitamizes the Iraqi government. It makes it clear that the US has no intention of staying. It makes it clear that the Irqui government will not be, forever, US puppets.

Posted at November 7, 2005 3:49 AM in response to An Alternative Strategy for Iraq

Just a comment. I don't believe the "slam dunk" quote. As far as I can guess, it is account George Bush gave to Woodward about his conversation with Tenet. It puts Bush in a good light and Tenet in a bad one. Did Woodward have any corroboration? Was Tenet bought off? Will we ever know? 

Posted at October 28, 2005 2:17 PM in response to Lies and Beliefs

I think there's a huge difference between hyping the evidence about, say, Social Security, and hyping the evidence to justify war. 
In the case of Social Security the evidence is not classified. An opponent, in principal, has access to the same evidence the White House has, and the issue can be argued in democratic style. 
In the case of war justification, much of the evidence is classified. The White House has two roles: keepers of the gate of classified information and war advocates. These two roles MUST be kept separate for a democracy to function. When the White House can cherry pick the data that's released, democratic debate cannot exist. The most vital question a democracy faces, the decision of to go to war, is no longer democratic. 
What's the best evidence that the information that was released was cherry picked? To my mind it was the pattern of evidence released by the White House between the summer of 02 and the beginning of the war. Let's look at it scientifically. I'd guess there were at least 50 newly declassified pieces of data the White House released about the activities of Saddam Hussein. EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF DATA supported the (false) premise that Iraq was building a WMD arsenal and supported international terrorism. What's the statitical likelihood of that? Especially considering the premise is false? And we now know that within the intelligence community there were myriad pieces of data that did not support these premises. 
So, we know without a statistical doubt that the White House stacked the deck. Did they lie? I think so, but to my mind that is not the critical issue. I don't really care what they were thinking, I care about what they were doing. And they were undermining the most fundamental of our democratic institutions. 
Were the White House and their cronies behaving in even more nefarious ways, such as  abetting the forgery of documents to further support their case? Good question. We may know the answer in a few months. 
John Kubie 

Posted at October 28, 2005 9:09 AM in response to Lies and Beliefs