Topic for debate:
Who is in control of the Bush administration and what is his/her/their purpose?

Is Bush a puppet?

I'll lay out the obvious answer that will come from the left. Karl Rove.
Other than the fact that he is a political genius, and is certainly responsible for getting Bush in the White House, I don't see him as the devil that he is made out to be. Are some scared because he's a little sharper than the Carville's and Shrum's on the left?
I don't think Bush is a puppet, but I do believe he has surrounded himself with a more aggressive and savvy group then many of his predecessors.

I don't think he's a "puppet", but I do think two things:

1. He's not well-informed before making decisions. There have been numerous accounts that he doesn't read the daily papers. Seems the direction for the so-called "War on Terrorism" was orchestrated by Cheney, who limited the information presented to Bush so as to end up with the result Cheney wanted.

2. He's definitely beholdin' to a bunch of very powerful corporate interest groups, including energy, pharma, etc., and this shows in his policy decisions since taking office.

It'd be nice to have more evidence of this. I haven't read a paper in years myself (too bulky and annoying) does this mean he is poorly informed. Not really...

Sharper or more devious? Karl Rove strikes me as the kind of bad guy you see in Jean Claude Van-Damme movies, so transparently evil you can't believe he is real. And he is the man who runs this White House, with lots of help from Dick Cheaney. What you have in this White House are all of the more conservative members of the Bush I White House running rampant. They simply tell George to jump and he says "How high and how far?" Look at who was in charge of Dubya's V-P search....Dick Cheaney! I really don't believe Dubya makes all that many decisions in this White House. Naturally, I don't have any "solid" evidence to support these claims, just hunches based on the circumstances.

No wonder Bush doesn't connect with the rest of the country



It's not like he's surfing the Internet or watching TV for his news. It's being filtered by people with their own agendas.

Please give me a break. Conservatives run the White House??? Which “conservative” pushed the steel tariffs through or this pork barrel energy bill?


Bush runs the country with advice he sometimes takes – as all presidents have done – good bad and indifferent.

Who ran the Clinton White house? Monica? Why did he walk away from the Iraq situation and leave the mess for Bush to clean up. Why didn’t he push the UN to deal with Saddam?

I reject the premise. Bush is not a puppet of any kind. He is a strong and decisive President, who as Ted says takes advice sometimes, and sometimes not. Don't like his policies? Well, I don't like some of them either, but I see him as having some excellent leadership qualities while disagreeing with him on some important issues and agreeing on others.

Didn't Bush himself admit he was disinterested in policy and would rely on his advisors? And we also have the comments of people like John DiIullo (Sp?), the former head of the Faith Based Initiative, who said it was Bush's political advisors (Rove) behind most political decisions (the famous "Mayberry Machiavellis" interview). That and the direct correlation between the known agenda of people like Cheney and Wolfowitz and the policy coming out of the Administration- often in contrast with what Bush's vague campaign pledges.

The President has repeatedly made statements suggesting he's "hands off" with the information side of things, allowing himself to be fed info by his closest advisors. He may be decisive, but his decision making process is being heavily constrained by those who, quite frankly, are more qualified than him, however I may disagree with their decisions. We should all be thankful were not relying on his policy depth alone.

Check the Commentary writer's view on that:

Then he goes on to write about a (tragic) situation with a girl who was shot by her brother, and "It was a tragic story that made a compelling case for gun control, something that Bush is totally opposed to."

The media has an agenda, as most people do. The premise of this newspaper argument is patently false. I rarely read the newspaper anymore, preferring other outlets (TV, radio, internet). That makes me uninformed?

If I had the resources that the President surely has, I would be using them. Should Bush spend four hours a day reading rags like the Washington Post, or actually talking to his advisors and setting agendas and policies?


There is no evidence that anyone but Bush is making the decisions in Washington. None.

Bush administration’s narratives and actions are consistent with the Evangelical Anti-intellectualism. To understand the path Bush (43) has chosen we have to understand some of his personal history and some history on the origins of Evangelical narrative.



Historically, Bush (43) administration narrative style and substance is similar to the Evangelical preacher. Religion was the first arena for American intellectual life, and thus the first arena for an anti-intellectual impulse. Anything that seriously diminished the role of rationality and learning in early American religion would later diminish its role in secular culture. The feeling that ideas should above all be made to work, the disdain for doctrine and for refinements in ideas, the subordination of men of ideas to men of emotional power or manipulative skill are hardly innovations of the twenty first century; they are inheritances from American Protestantism.

H. Richard Niebuhr wrote,






Conservatives found in this a complete repudiation of the role of learning in religion; and in the emotional kind of religion that came from the preaching of men so disposed, they saw the destruction of all rationality in religious life. “As none but rational creatures are capable of religion,” wrote a Southern opponent of evangelism. Fundamental tenets were being neglected, and this new type of preaching threatened to dissolve all rational elements in religion, for many of the evangelists admitted that their preaching came by,



Bush (43) Presidency shows a similar thinking process. He has destroyed literally 100,000 of thousands of scientific articles from the Government E-Libraries, (burning the libraries), because he disagreed with his personal philosophy.



Bush has not followed scientific based ideas in favor of Corporations and his religious belief.



A comparison with the scientific habits of mind and the Bush’s habits of mind shows 8 major differences.

Scientific Habits of Mind
Intellectual Humility
Intellectual Sense of Justice
Intellectual Perseverance
Intellectual Fair-Mindedness
Intellectual Confidence in Reason
Intellectual Courage
Intellectual Empathy
Intellectual Autonomy
Intellectual Integrity


Bush’s Habits of Mind
Intellectual Arrogance
Intellectual Unfairness
Intellectual Laziness
Intellectual Disregard for Justice
Intellectual Distrust of Reason
Intellectual Cowardice
Intellectual Self-Centeredness
Intellectual Conformity
Intellectual Hypocrisy


All American Presidents MUST choose their own cabinet and advisers. Regardless if people chosen are good at their job, or bad at their job, American Presidents choose their cabinet and advisers. Therefore, Bush (43) is responsible, regardless of the quality of the people he choose to advise him. If the people he choose have a very limited scientific habits of mind, Bush is still responsible.

In summary, while it can be argued that Bush (43)'s habits of mind may make him appear to be a puppet, in my opinion he is making his own choices with the limited intellectual abilities that he possesses.

Quite a good post oneofshibumi, this echos quite well the way I feel, if he is a puppet, he is still responsible, because his is the ultimate responsibility. Though his intellectual laziness DOES allow himself to be a puppet, because he chooses this. I think this has been the pattern of his life, simply because he is such a failure on his own, and has really never been able to accomplish anything "under his own steam". For instance, his oil and baseball endevours, he was very unsuccesful until rescued by friends and family. Perhaps he feels more comfortable in the role of puppet?

I have rather mixed feelings about this one. Yes, we have all heard how Karl Rove is Bush's brain. I believe that Bush knows what he believes, it's just that at certain times, he can't express it very well. That is where the policy wonks and others like that come into play. They help give his message a voice. So in essence, he's not a puppet, he just needs people around him to give a voice to his views. Those who don't match it are probably out the door real quick. Just a guess on my part.

Well, an interesting post, certainly.

Seems a bit high on accusation and low on evidence though.

What your support for the lists of Bush's Mental Habits? (Which, impressively appear to encompass everything bad in the book)

Final note, I made mention of this in the great "Buzz Words" thread in the media forum, the the word evangelical simply refers to the gospels, which do not exemplify "intellectual laziness". The vast majority of Christians are "evangelical" Christians, those who profess to believe the gospel.

So then where is your evidence that Bush's "intellectual laziness" (lets just cut to the chase as say stupidity, no use in verbal fencing) makes him appear to be a puppet?

There are a number of instances in which anti-intellecualism has occured. Many valid scientific studies were trashed on the basis of being too "political" nevermind there was no criticism of how studies were carried out, just blanket political assertions. Sex education is one area that the administration has proven itself to be very regressive on. Most Americans believe, and most researchers will agree, that a comprhenesive sex educaiton program that includes both abstinence training, well as information relating to contraceptives is the best route to go. The administration didn't agree with Dr. David Satcher's attorney general report, so they just ignored it. Now, we have religious groups receiving funding for abstinence only educaiton, inspite of the fact that every professional medical group there is does not concur with their backwards philosophy. In Consider:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine (IOM), Office of National AIDS Policy, National Institutes of Health, Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the Surgeon General of the United States all have published research analyses supporting the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education.6 The IOM called on Congress to rescind funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage education because there is no evidence supporting its effectiveness.7"
(Culled from: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publicati...t/fssexcur.htm)

Let's talk about the anti-intellectual attitude when it comes to science & the environment. Once again, the evidence is overwhelming:

" "The Administration's political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists," according to the report, posted yesterday at www.politicsandscience.org. "The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups....Several prestigious scientific journals have editorialized about the Bush administration's dealings in science in recent months, including Science, Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine."

http://truthout.org/docs_03/080903D.shtml

Turnea, Im not proposing to answer for another debater, however in my opinion if you are intellectually lazy you are bound to be easily manipulated. Just speak to any person who reads little and believes what they are told, they do not have a rounded experience of the world we live in or a grasp of deeper concepts.

Bush admitted that the news he gets comes straight from his close advisors almost exclusively.
Considering who's in the administration, this sets him up to get basically a one sided viewpoint, that which is desireable to the Admin. who really do have an agenda they've been pushing as far back as Clinton.
Bush does not strike me as someone with a cool head, nor one who can percieve more than one side to things, or ask for other opposite or conflicting viewspoints to make decisions. I think our President has a black and white, right and wrong, no gray area view of the world. This makes him decidedly easy to manipulate.
http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1a040400.html

I have often imagined the Admin, when they want something to go their way. Talk to Bush in emotional buzz words, the need to be rid of, do this or that....blankety blank becuase of oil industry economics, terrorism, freedom, the American way, add into the mix a few good spots where he can look macho, parade him in front of troops ( who always give big cheers, and no protest) ego boost and tell him he will be popular for it and I think he will go with almost any program presented by his admin. He trusts them, as one normally would, but also possibly BECAUSE he has no inkling of any other view, and whatever presented makes good sense to him.
Bush likes grandiose stances and adores big wording like axis of evil, protecting the american people (which he sees himself as big in this role), ridding the world of terrorists no matter how long it takes NOR HOW MUCH IT COSTS! Etc. Unlike other Presidents who I believe knew they were playing politics with the masses, I believe that Bush believes this jargon, easy to see mostly by his ad libs, which are exceedingly embarassing for a world leader. Again, not exactly a seer of subtlety in world politics or diplomacy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm
http://www.progressive.org/feb03/comm0203.html


I do think Bush has his pet projects, very much his. Faith based initiatives, the ridding of Planned Parenthood, anti-abortion policy, tax cuts, the ousting of Saddam as an evil dictator, I wonder if it went beyond that for him. I do believe the exorbitant spending is very much his giving caution to the wind, his experience with economics severely lacking.
I dont think Bush could play chess; I dont think he thinks about long term strategies effectively, or many of these policies would have never come to pass the way they have. The American pocketbook appears very large and spendable to Bush.

( I certainely doubt Bush could play a game of Scrabble against a 15 year old and win. This may seem particularily nasty as commentary but think about it, how lost is he when the Admin talks to him of economics, or in big words he doesnt know the meaning of?)

With this kind of personality, backround and thought pattern, how could one NOT be a puppet to some extent?
Then comes the big question, arent most presidents really puppets? No saints get into this office, and noone gets there without dues to pay to many.

Personally I've never laughed at AD so much until I saw this thread and the "I hate Bush, but why?" thread.

PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED

I could care less what most people think, especially when they don't provide any evidence, or when the evidence is there but the logic isn't (ie: posting editorials as conclusive evidence) but I hardly care to stand around having people insinuate that I am an "anti-intellectual" because I am Christian. That's just plain disgusting .

To answer your question as I can't find anyone in here with any real facts I did read a NewsWeek spread put out by a journalist who's spends a lot of time with the President and his Administration and he noted that quite to all of your contrary George W Bush is well informed by his staff and likes to read "the newspaper" every morning in order to see what's on the minds of the American public and this reporter also said that Bush gets advise from political advisors but makes most of his decisions (unlike Bill Clinton) with his Administration and intel staff. The article went on to describe meetings that take place every Thursday where Bush and Cheney meet alone (no staff whatsoever) and discuss issues in the Senate and House. He also said that Bush is pretty Conservative but sometimes wants to break down and give into the middle ground, but then sits with Cheney and gets a lot of support for his Conservative stylings and in the end goes with his gut.

Make of it what you want. The hatred of Bush is so deep in some people that it doesn't matter what he does even if he flies into Iraq to feed the soldiers people will hate him. Just remember this: Bush won't lose in '04 and it's because of that hatred. That hatred from such a small base maybe 25% of all voters will resonate with maybe another 10-15% of voters (people who listen to what moveon.org says ) but to win in '04 you're going to need to get the swing votte and the polls show that swingers like Bush. The economy's doing better and the War is going well, on top of that the Medicare bill just passed and he's dancing arouind the country collecting money. He's teflon and without a real issue to fight him on the Democrats are in a world of hurt. If you want to see him ousted you'd better hope he has sex with his intern and instructs his staff to obstruct a Congressional Committe investigation .

Turnea, thank you for your response, evaluation and question in your post, I would like to correct a miscommunication. We are using two different meanings when we use the word “intellectual laziness.” From my perspective, you are associating the word, “stupid,” with the word “intellectual laziness.” That was NOT what I meant. It is my belief an explanation of what I mean by intellectual perseverance and intellectual laziness will clarify my meaning.

First, INTELLECTUAL PERSEVERANCE can be defined as the disposition to work one’s way through intellectual complexities despite the frustration inherent in the task. Some intellectual problems are complex and cannot be easily solved. One has intellectual perseverance when one does not give up in the face of intellectual complexity or frustration. The intellectually perseverant person displays firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others, and has a realistic sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended time to achieve understanding or insight.

The opposite of intellectual perseverance is INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS, demonstrated in the tendency to give up quickly when faced with an intellectually challenging task. The intellectually indolent, or lazy, person has a low tolerance for intellectual pain or frustration. Deleting competing ideas is INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS. If you gave a student the responsibility to compare and contrast several theories, including his and her own. When the student presents his conclusion, he or she tells you, I burned the other theories so mine is the best. What would you call that? I call it INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS.

Second, I thought the information provided at the Politics and Science inferred Bush’s Evangelical Christian-Right Education Policy (the memo). The action of destroying education research available for free to all Americans qualifies as EVIDENCE for my classifying Bush’s action as Intellectual Laziness.
(1) http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsan...e_education.htm
(2) http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/index.htm

Turnea, I am really at a lost of why you feel enough evidence was not provided. I will break down my argument, presenting some examples.

MY REASONING OF, WHY BUSH IS NOT CONTROLLED BY SCIENTIFIC REASONING.
The scientific community has developed certain criteria and guidelines for dealing with information, developed over several centuries. When I say the scientific community, I mean institutions, associations, and individuals who support, discuss, debate, publish, and apply the information from their field. The scientific community follows certain traits of mind to negotiate a problem with thinking. Left to itself, much of our thinking is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

All the fields of Science ask very specific questions and draw very specific answers. However, all information must answer certain basic questions, besides the specific questions natural to a particular science field (ie. engineering questions are different from biology questions). These basic questions include:

1. What are the issues and the conclusions?
2. What are the reasons?
3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous?
4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
6. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
7. How good is the evidence?
8. Are there rival causes?
9. Are the statistics deceptive?
10. What significant information is omitted?
11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?

IN MY LAST POST, I showed Bush’s policy of deleting scientific articles from the U.S. Government’s Educational Website, owned by the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, Anti-Intellectual and shows the trait of mind called Intellectual Laziness. The memo shows the criteria for the first PURGING of an American Electronic Government Library.

In other words, the idea that Public Employees (Teachers), who by law have to write lesson plans, come up with ways to teach the diverse America’s children, and create literally thousands of research papers and teaching techniques for free, an Electronic Library that any teacher could access. We pay Billions on education, and the Informational Highway would be the Educational Library. Any American could access all this free information on Education, for pennies. That was the purpose of the Government investment into computer and the libraries. The cost to run is inexpensive. In the 1990s the Educational Highway as Clinton called it, was going to educate students cheaply while providing even the poorest schools. Indeed, from rural farms of South Carolina to the inner city of Los Angeles, the same resources would be available for all on the Internet.



The Christian-Right, who are overwhelmingly Evangelicals lead Texas to its disastrous educational system, under the implementation of Bush 43 and Rod Paige. Bush uses Evangelical style statements and symbolism when communicating. When Evangelicals disagree with the ideas of a book, or the words on a CD they burn them. Bush did the same thing to scientific information on education for ALL AMERICANS. An example of the trait of mind called Intellectual Laziness.

Bush rather than provide logic reasons, he just destroyed the information and knowledge that did NOT agree with his educational policies. I have associated erasing information from the Governments educational website, with the burning of Libraries a rather common activity that Evangelicals perform, and other Christian denominations do not.

In the last 20 years in the United States, what type of Christian’s burn CDs, or books? Self proclaimed Evangelical Christians. Bush has supported the Texan Evangelicals and worshipped at their Church when in Texas. Bush 43, has used the Christian God and religious more than any other President in the last 20 years and his policies have been consistent with the Evangelical Christian-Right political policies for Education.

The traits of mind essential for scientific thinking are interdependent. Consider intellectual humility. To become aware of the limits of our knowledge, we need the intellectual courage to face our own prejudices and ignorance. To discover our own prejudices in turn, we often must intellectually empathize with and reason within points of view with which we fundamentally disagree. To achieve this end, we typically must engage in intellectual perseverance, as learning to empathically enter a point of view against which we are biased takes time and significant effort. That effort will not seem justified unless we have the necessary confidence in reason to believe we will not be tainted or “taking-in” by whatever is false or misleading in the opposing viewpoint.

Would reasonable person say Bush has practiced any of the scientific thinking described above and deleted thousands of scientific documents?


1. What are the issues and the conclusions?
Bush has deleted information and knowledge created by educational researchers from all over the U.S. and some information from other countries. Started by Ronald Reagan and built by George Bush 41, an Educational Library Computer Database (ELCD). Teachers will not have to buy books or journals, they can find it for free on the INFORMATIONAL HIGHWAY. Clinton gave generous funding in his second term for educational research allowing a tremendous amount of research to be carried out and a tremendous amount of KNOWLEDGE about education to be created. In 1998, the Bilingual Clearinghouse section of the ELCD had downloads of simple dictionaries of Spanish/English words, worksheets in English/Spanish, Russian/English, Polish/English, etc. The website also contained research by educational researchers. Bush has replaced it with the English Language Learner website. The website does not contain the all the research, the method emphasized for reading is phonics. No dictionaries or worksheets in written other languages to help transition students from their native language to English can be found on the NEW BUSH English Language Learner website. Rather than allowing different theories, and techniques to be available or debate why they should be removed from the COMMON GOOD? I concluded only a President who could not think through the obvious anti-intellectual act of not working through such a decision as INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS.

The obvious conclusion is now a teacher in Iowa who gets a child from China, or Russia, or Hispanic has to BUY a dictionary and workbooks in the native language. Teachers have lost a free resource. One of Clinton’s last acts for the website was to add sound so students could read and hear the word at the same time. Bush 43, eliminated that provision and erased Research articles even from the period of his father’s presidency. Once again Bush 43, destroys the PUBLIC GOODS. Who would argue destroying information created by educational researchers and teachers all who are paid by the American people should have their information ERASED from the public record because Bush (a C student in school) and Rod Paige.

Secretary of Education, Rod Paige began his transition from football coach to educational leader. In 1969 at Indiana University, Paige earned his PhD in physical education with a 123-page dissertation titled “The Effect of Pre-Foreperiod Preparation and Foreperiod Duration Upon the Response Time of Football Lineman.” The study determined the best conditions for getting fast starts from football lineman, and it concluded with a recommendation for further study of “the response time of football linemen for lateral movements.”
Source : www.edweek.org
“Off to a Quick Start,” Education Week on the Web, 14 February 2001.

2. What are the reasons Bush gives for his Education policies?
Bush stated his educational policies will improve education for ALL STUDENTS in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. Bush has never addressed his reasons for erasing a portion of the Educational Library, that proportion that does not support his point of view.

In my opinion, make the educational system now pays more money to CORPORATIONS for educational material, WE THE PEOPLE owned for pennies. Educational Scholars and Teachers who do not work for the Corporations had spent over ten years filling the website. You could see how educational theories were refined depending on which article one read This transfer of Common Goods to the Private CORPORATIONS (several teacher ideas have been placed in Corporate made books and copyrighted. Bush has consistently has put forth the policies that benefit Corporations/Evangelical Christian-Right and he is being WELL PAID for his efforts, by the Corporations.

What linked the compassionate conservative Bush to the football coach Paige was their fervent belief in the ability of state-mandated testing and phonics-based reading drills to give every child a chance to succeed in America. As superintendent of the Houston schools, Paige oversaw a skill-and-drill curriculum (Corporations not Public Educational Researchers) geared to preparing students for Texas-mandated statewide tests. Calling her story “Drilling in Texas,” Kathleen Manzo wrote about the Houston reading program, “Teachers in Houston are marching in lockstep to fulfill district orders that basic skills make up the core of their reading curriculum.” She described the following scene in a Houston kindergarten.

The children sit in neat rows on the floor, their legs crisscrossed, hands in their laps. In unison, they sound out the letters, their voices loud and clear, as part of the morning reading drill. In the singsong tones of a military cadence, they work their way through the alphabet:

“A, a, what do you say, ah, ah, ah…,” they chant.
“B, b, what do you say, buh, buh, buh…”
Kathleen Manzo, “Drilling in Texas,” 10 June 1998.
www.edweek.org

3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous?
Fortunately, Bush’s quote about what criteria should be used to destroy scientific educational research documents and Public Teacher created resources were quite clear.
Unfortunately, what he calls “scientific education” is actually 50-year old pedagogy, which harms the most vulnerable children.

4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?
Bush’s value conflicts with scientific methods and most Christian’s values. He made a unilateral decision to deny Americans to freely download information to help educators, researchers, parents, students, and interested public. Does making the public PAY more for education by forcing teachers to USE MATERIALS that did not seem to help TEXAS when it comes to independent the SAT or ACT test, which shows TEXAS has dropped after Governor Bush/Paige’s educational policies.

For Evangelical Christian-Right and Bush 43, it was a combination of a liberal Supreme Court and liberal government bureaucrats that replaced prayers and Bible reading in public schools with secular humanism. As this Christian subgroups see it, a combination of liberal writers and educational bureaucrats have forced textbooks on schools that undercut evangelical values. Form this perspective, it is the influence of liberal cultural elites that results in textbooks containing the values of vegetarianism, one-worldism, and secular humanism. It is liberal elites who promote sex education programs filled with teaching about birth control, homosexuality, and AIDS. It is liberal elites who are responsible for the sexuality and violence in the movies and television programs that, from the perspectives of the religious right, undermine what they call “family values” and increase crime rates.

It is important to understand that the resentment against the so-called liberal elite and government bureaucrats is based on real policies that were, in fact, imposed on many unwilling citizens. This does not mean, that these policies were wrong, but that they were not initiated by the communities most affected by them. In reality, there do exist government officials, legal experts, and media elites who do not represent the values of the Evangelical Christian-Right. Therefore, the opposition to educational and government bureaucrats and the desire to return power to the people is based on the assumption that this will restore traditional values to education.

* Is the culture war a smoke screen for growing economic inequalities?

* Are northern and southern Whites workers simply blaming cultural and racial changes for a decline in real income?

* Should northern and southern White workers be focusing their attention on the redistribution of wealth as opposed to cultural issues?

Whether the culture war is a smoke screen for the increasing economic inequalities in U.S. society or a result of a growing sense of alienation and disadvantage among White workers, the result is a sharp political debate about U.S. schools. School choice and privatization could cause major structural changes in education. Issues of evolution, secular humanism, sex education, multiculturalism, and affirmative action will continue to contribute to political divisiveness.

5. What are the descriptive assumptions?
By eliminating any competing idea or program that does not support phonics reading (memorization) will increase reading scores. Most educators believe in whole reading (phonics and comprehension skills). When I say Johnny can read I can mean to things. I can mean Johnny can pronounce all the words on the page. Or, I can say Johnny not only can pronounce all the words on the page and understand what the words mean, and how to connect them to their own experiences so they can use the concept in the future.

For example, according to Bush’s description, I can teach any American to read Spanish in 1 hour. Of course, the English speaker will not understand anything, but they could pronounce Spanish words correctly.

Math scores continue to improve in the U.S. but reading… After Bush implemented his phonics-based/testing-rich policies had shown disappointment results in the reading. Implementation of Bush’s version of the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND will leave the students good at counting money, and not able to information that requires higher thinking skills. Teachers, most likely will receive the blame for the student’s lack of progress in reading, not Bush’s educational phonics-based reading programs.

6. Are there any fallacies in Bush/Paige’s reasoning?
Yes. Question framing, presentism, and ahistoricity are just several of many fallacies in Bush/Paige’s reasoning. Does reading mean pronouncing and memorizing (phonics) words or does reading mean understanding and higher level thinking skills needed to analyze what is being read? I say both, Bush emphasized funding for phonics (the same as the poor educational program implemented in the U.S. in the 1950s. The years that U.S.S.R. was able to becoming the first to reach space, showing how following the Anti-Intellectual/McCarthism only was able to educate 50% of American Children to High-School graduation.

7. How good is the evidence?
Historically, Evangelicals have been associated with anti-intellectual thinking (above, and my previous post). Bush has implemented Skinner’s 1950s pedagogy that supports Evangelical Christian-Right educational policies. Bush’s educational policies have resulted in more money used on education with declining and stagnant outcomes during the last two years, in reading. How are the schools doing in your neighborhood?

8. Are there rival causes?
No. An Evangelical Christian-Right President, a Christian-Right Republican Congress and a split evenly Supreme Court, and the majority Republican Courts have supported these educational changes.

An example, in June 2002, in a 4-to-1 decision, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ruled that it’s okay to rip off the children of the New York City. The Appellate Division judicial crew overturned a landmark ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse. DeGrasse had outraged Gov. George Pataki and his business and political cronies by ruling that New York’s state funding system deprived city children of their right to a basic education, (the same holds true for poor Whites in rural areas and poor White suburbs). Responding to the complaint of a coalition of parents and teachers, DeGrasse ordered reforms to bring certified teachers, reduced class sizes, up-to-date texts, and upgraded technology to city schools that lacked all these things. He ordered that all New York City schoolchildren must be afforded the same kinds of educational opportunities as children in more affluent sections of the city and in the suburbs.

In DeGrasse’s decision “reform” didn’t have any of the tricky nuances employed by the Business Roundtable or the U.S. Congress, among others. For DeGrasse, reform meant spending money to make education more democratic by making sure that all children in New York had equal access to the types of schools that affluent students consider their due. The BASIC SCIENTIFIC THINKING if I want the same results (all American children achieving high scores) I need to give the same amount of resources to all American children. Even Bush said that to educate Iraqi schools requires money.

Politicians (some Democrats and all Republicans) and their corporate handlers didn’t sit for such a ruling. Equity is not on the capitalist, corporate, congressional agenda. Along with their brethren around the country, politicos in New York operate according to the rule handed down from the education summit convened at IBM headquarters when Bush 41 was in office and Clinton was the “education governor” of Arkansas. This rule decrees that schools must find their gold in high standards and the hoopla surrounding testing, not in the public purse. These fellows draw on what passes for research and is issued by those at Heritage, Fordham, Manhattan, Cato, et al.—IDEOLOGUES who chant the mantra, “We’ve tried throwing money at schools. It doesn’t work. Pull up your bootstraps, and raise your test scores.” Right. Their slogan might be, Just Say No to Low Test Scores. Money doesn’t solve problems; high-stakes test solve problems.

Led by Gov. Pataki, the state of New York appealed DeGrasse’s ruling. And there we have education for the global economy in a nutshell: the state sues to make sure education remains better for the rich and worse for the poor.

In writing the New York Appellate decision, Justice Alfred Lerner explained why city children must be treated differently from children living in more affluent areas.

QUOTES:
“Society needs workers in all levels of jobs, the majority of which may very well be low-level.” That is a direct quote.
Source: Richard Perez-Pena, “Court Reverses Finance Ruling on City Schools,” New York Times, 26 June 2002.

Thus does the global economy engulf the schoolhouse, and the children are discarded as so much refuse. The method is clear: announce that schools must prepare all to be high-tech workers; then cook the books so that 20% to 30% fail the high-stakes tests and don’t receive diplomas. That’s the failure rate. Hordes of others, seeing they aren’t going to pass the test, drop out before reaching the 10th grade, where the exam is administered. To make the 10th-grade passing rate look rosier, more and more districts are holding students back in ninth grade, and dropout rates are increasing in middle school. Examining data from the Massachusetts Department of Education, noted analyst Anne Wheelock has reported a 300% increase in dropouts from middle school between 1995 and 2000.
Source:
www.massrefusal.org/papers/dropouts.html.

The number of Middle School dropouts started under Clinton, and is accelerating under Bush. That is what happens when you start retaining children in primary grades.

The New American Corporate global economy needs these dropouts. If schools are successful in turning out swarms of well-educated youngsters, who’s going to flip our burgers and clean our toilets at minimum wage? Who’ll sell merchandise for Wal-mart? Work in day care? Take a look at the job projections from the Center for the Study of Jobs and Education in Wisconsin.
Source: www.jobseducationwis.org

They include data on jobs throughout the U.S. and provide irrefutable evidence of the “American Algebra Scam.” In short, the job market for mathematics-dependent work is narrow. Tom and Ray Maligozzi, NPR’s Car Talk guys, periodically make this same point on “Car Talking,” asking, “What makes the people at Educational Testing Service think that half of life is mathematics?”
Source: Tom Magliozzi, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 4 April, 2001.

Historically, our schools have always been a sorting system for business and industry, winners and losers. But the current mania for high-stakes testing overlays all school experiences with terror, convincing children as early as kindergarten that they aren’t good enough for the global economy. Reminds me of the old Jesuits adage, “Give me a boy for six years, and he is mine for life,” after 12-year curriculum of anxiety, unequal funding, the survivors will most likely be compliant workers, grateful for whatever the global-Corporations dish out. Maybe they will grow up to be mad as hell. It is a gamble Bush seems more than willing to take.


9. Are the statistics deceptive?
Destruction of research papers and scientific journals is deceptive. Then Bush claims Right Wing Think Tanks ideologies, which do not have a basis in educational research. I have found a high percentage research documents produced or used by Right Wing Think Tanks to contain statistical deception. Bush’s educational policy of deleting research documents containing statistics and educational tools is a prime example of “deceptive statistics.” If Bush has made it more difficult for the American people to find information that contradicts his claims about science, is the same technique used by Evangelicals in the 1950s or Evangelicals in the Great Awakening. The justification was, “My point of view is correct, and all other knowledge is bad.” Bush’s philosophy is, “My point of view is correct, because there is no other knowledge.” Legitimate research and knowledge no longer is available to discuss statistics given by Bush.


10. What significant information is omitted?
Significant information was deleted by President Bush’s educational policy. Intellectual Laziness elevated to a level not seen in the United States since Andrew Jackson. President Andrew Jackson put “common folk” into administration positions. His choice for POST MASTER of the U.S. was ILLITERATE. Jackson, eventually put a literate Post Master after 3 months of non-delivery of mail. Bush wants to educate American children by deleting Educational Research and free information for Students, Teachers, Researchers, Parents and people who were interested. ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM in the 21st century, acts similarly to the Evangelical methods around the time of the Scopes Monkey Trials (Burn the Science Books). How appropriate that Bush has chosen a similar educational policy for the U.S. Electronic Educational Library. What better way to guarantee we repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

11. What reasonable conclusions are possible?

Bush’s educational policy deleting 10-years of Educational research does not support his proclaimed educational outcomes. He has only funded phonics and high-stakes testing, clearly an anti-intellectual act because REAL EDUCATION, in the 21st century, requires high order thinking. I would place Bush’s actions in the same category as the Taliban tearing down Buddha statues a few years back. What did Americans call people who tear down Buddhas or destroying Scientific Information? Barbarians or Anti-Intellectual.


Bush’s education pedagogy was prominent in the 1950s, when only 50% of Americans could read at an 8th grade level. The discipline of the 1950s teacher’s ruler on the knuckles, has been replaced by high-stakes testing that have results’ inaccuracies that are the equivalent of 2 years in grade school. The SAT has an error of over 153 points. You can find this information in the print of their contracts, (lawyers are no fool.) Parents could sue schools for having their children repeat a grade because of errors on the standardized tests, and in fact several education boards were sued in Chicago, and the students past to the next year. The new No Child Left Behind changed that, you can no longer sue because the Corporations make crummy tests. The Corporations that manufacture Standardized Tests admit their test should not be used for high-stakes testing or as the only measure of a student. Does measuring a student once or twice a year truly measure their academic competence? Ever have a bad day or test anxiety? When it comes to football, Secretary of Educational Paige believes that FOOTBALL TEAMS should play more than once or twice a year, to tell which team is the better. In contrast, he believes one or two tests a year should measure a student’s academic future, starting in kindergarten.

Other solutions could replace Standardized High-Stakes Testing. Portfolio Assessment has shown to be more accurate and less stressful than Standardized Testing. Portfolio Assessment involves creating higher standard thinking projects, which students would have to complete over the year and added to a Portfolio. When the school-year ends, a Portfolio Committee of three or more teachers/assessors grade the student’s portfolio against a Rubric Standards for student’s Portfolios. The student’s portfolio contains classroom work, collaborative projects, student created performances, and other material, which students have to create and achieve within a school year. This addresses many of the downsides of Standardized High-Stakes Testing, besides the inaccuracy. Students know from day one what is required for the school year, and the teacher becomes a resource (Child-center classroom/Science based education) rather than task-master (Teacher centered classroom/old-fashioned/traditional/Anti-Intellectual). No more test anxiety, illness, having a bad day, Standardized High-Stakes Testing errors.

SUMMARY: The information on the Website was mine, yours, ours, all Americans, in fact it was accessible to whole world. The Website planned by President Reagan, constructed under President Bush 41, and which President Clinton took credit. It worked. All research paid for by public funds was posted on the website. A collection of articles from Educational Scholars, Educational Psychologists, Educational Special-Education Specialists, Reading Experts, Linguists, etc. wrote articles that slowly grew the Educational library. Teachers created lesson plans, themes, teaching ideas saving teachers all over the English-speaking world the time and money of self-creating or buying these materials. Students from Public, Private, Religious, Or Home-Taught could down load material, greatly decreasing cost of the Educational materials. Remember, libraries are built over time, a long time. Recently, the Bilingual Educational Website had added English/2nd Language worksheets, for words, math concepts, writing concepts, etc. Why should schools have to pay for KNOWLEDGE they freely create for the AMERICAN PEOPLE? The U.S. used to have the oldest Electronic Educational Library in the world, now we enter an Brave New World. Reminds me of Orwell’s book, Animal Farm where the laws that protected the other animals from the pigs disappeared. One by one, bits of knowledge disappear.





I looked at your quote on page six of “Buzz Words,” after reading all your quotes on the thread of six pages. We are in agreement, your definition of Evangelical, “simply refers to the gospels,” is one of several meanings the word Evangelical has had over its almost 500-year history. Back then, self-proclaimed German Evangelical writers proclaimed that the Bible should be understood by the heart, and not by “higher learning.” Critiques describing a lack of historical linearity, philosophical/historical basis, or consistency of argument has characterized Evangelical writings from the beginning. Emotional appeal and dramatic presentation has unabashedly been an Evangelical practice since the Germans created this strain of Christianity.

The word Evangelical was first used in Germany at the beginning of the 1500s (1525), and had the meaning of an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party. In the 16th century the Catholic Church defined it as marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause, (Protestant and Catholic Evangelicals). By the 18th and 19th century Evangelical pertained to certain movements in U.S. Protestant Churches and a few Protestant European denominations. Next, in the 1970’s Evangelical Christian-Right started to use the word to designate Christians, especially Christians eschewing the designation of fundamentalist (Literally Interpretation of the Bible/Anita Bryant), but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible. Then, in the 1980s it meant belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the Church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in atonement of Christ (Are you saved?). Finally, in the 1990s, the Evangelical Christian-Right began to use the word Evangelical to mean, “of pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings (Post-modern).” I was using the more traditional meaning of the word Evangelical.

The Corporate Mass Media use the word “Evangelical Christian” to distinguish this branch of Christianity from the many other branches. The Evangelical Christian has become politicized, most branches of Christianity are not. The word Christian has existed four times longer than the word Evangelical, and has a recognized history. Evangelicals have always been a subgroup of Christian denominations. Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Gnostics, etc are examples of Christianity Branches that have existed over 1000 years before Evangelical Christianity was born. They are also examples of non-Evangelical Christians. America broadcasts to the rest of the world, they have to explain what branch of the World Religions the Evangelicals belong to, Christianity.

We are also in disagreement when you say, “Evangelical Christians,” are the majority Christian denomination within the U.S. or in the World. World wide, the Catholics are the largest Christian sub-group. In the United States, Catholics are the largest Christian subgroup/denomination. I have provided a source about the number of Christians in the world and the U.S.

SOURCE:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families

Personally, I find the Evangelical post-modern, self-proclaimed definition, confusing at best and Anti-intellectual at worse. Confusing because the Evangelical definition can lead people to believe that a majority of Christians interpret the Christian Bible the same way Evangelicals do, and they do not. And, Anti-Intellectual because Evangelicals only learn one meaning of the word Evangelical, often making mistakes when thinking about ideas and concepts. One of those mistakes is to proclaim that a subgroup equals a group. Evangelicals are a subgroup of Christianity. When Evangelicals adopted the definition, “those who proclaim to believe in the gospel” they are describing ALL Christians in general (ambiguous definition). The Evangelical Christian-Right has theological, philosophical, and historical perspective very different from other Christians. Most Christians do not believe in politicizing their Christianity. Over the years, the Evangelicals I have met, tell me they actually believe they speak for “All Christians” or “The Majority of Christians.” They usually show a complete ignorance of other types of Christian denominations and Christian history. I wonder, “Why should Evangelicals fear identifying their denomination, and need to make such baseless claims as representing Christianity as a whole?”

Webster Unabridged Dictionary gives 10 meanings for the word Christian. 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teaching. 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. 3. of or pertaining to Christians. 4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ. 5. decent; respectable. 6. human; not brutal; humane. 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ. 9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches. 10. a male given name.

Bush and the Republican’s have produced public policies to attract the Evangelical Christian-Right, a political-religious group, and as such, opens the source of their policies, their beliefs, to political critiques. Most Christians have learned to live in peace with both other religions and science. Many Christians in the U.S. have become tired of trying to explain to non-Christians why Evangelicals, a SUBGROUP of Christianity, do not represent the majority of Christianity. The majority of Christians follow Matthew 22:21.

MY CATEGORIES OF POST-MODERN AMERICAN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN-RIGHT

1. Christian Nationalists—Biblically–defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. America’s greatness as God’s chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Includes some non–Christian cultural conservatives. Overlaps somewhat with Christian theocracy.

The Hard Right

2. Christian Theocrats—Christian men are ordained by God to run society. Eurocentric version of Christianity based on early Calvinism. Intrinsically Christian ethnocentric, treating non-Christians as second-class citizens. Implicitly antisemitic. Includes soft dominionists and hardline Reconstructionists.

Xenophobic Right

3. Paleoconservatives— Ultra-conservatives and reactionaries. Natural financial oligarchies preserve the republic against democratic mob rule. Usually nativist (White Racial Nationalist), sometimes antisemitic or Christian nationalist. Elitist emphasis is similar to the intellectual conservative revolutionary wing of the European New Right. Often libertarian.

4. Patriot Movement (Armed Militias) (Regressive Populists)—Secret elites control the government and banks. The government plans repression to enforce elite rule or global collectivism. The patriot and armed militia movements are one response from this sector. Americanist. Often supports Business Nationalism due to its isolationist emphasis. Anti-Globalists, yet support non-interventionist national security militarism. Repressive towards scapegoated targets below them on socio-economic ladder.

5. White Racial Nationalists—Alien cultures make democracy impossible. Cultural Supremacists argue different races can adopt the dominant (White) culture; Biological Racists argue the immutable integrity of culture, race, and nation. Segregationists want distinct enclaves, Separatists want distinct nations. Americanist. Tribalist emphasis is similar to the race-is-nation wing of the European New Right.

6. Extreme Right (Ultra Right)—Militant forms of insurgent or revolutionary right ideology. Separatist or genocidalist ethnocentric nationalism. Reject pluralist democracy for an organic oligarchy that unites the idealized homogenic nation. Conspiracist views of power that are overwhelmingly antisemitic. Home to overt fascists, neonazis, Christian Identity, National Alliance, Church of the Creator.

The above list contains the Evangelical subgroups I have identified. The above groups have produced books, radio, television, newspaper articles, websites, etc. Obviously, other types of Evangelicals may exist, but I have never found any information on them. Evangelical denominations have divided into the hundreds subgroups, to examine each one is impossible. The above grouping divides Evangelical into their different basic themes.

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTROL BUSH? I do not doubt his sincere religious commitment that has provided him with the self-proclaimed title of “Compassionate Conservative.” Indeed, Bush has stated he frequently asks himself the question, “What would Jesus Do?” Well as a Christian I wonder, does Bush’s policies reflect Biblical values? Or do they reflect something else.


1) Would Jesus launch a “pre-emptive” war?

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt: 5:9)

2) President Bush has stated he was ready to “kick some Iraqi hoofed mammal resembling and closely related to the horse, but having a smaller build and longer ears.”

What would Jesus do?

Ye have heard that it hath it said, thou shalt love they neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that have you pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matt. 5:43-44).

3) The Bush Administration has accused Americans who speak for peace as anti-American and other vile accusations.

What would Jesus do?

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt:5:9)

Of course, one cannot evaluate a movement by the “messiah” like President Bush, since he is one person. Let us look at some of the Christian Right’s arguments and let us ask What would Jesus do?

4) What would Jesus say about allowing school prayer or not?

And when thou prayest, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But when thou prayest, enter into they closet, and when thou has shut they door, pray to they Father which seeth in secret… (Matt. 6:5-6). (To BCs, the inaccuracy in the translation has no influence on my basic argument)

5) What would Jesus say about the separation of church and state?

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt: 22:21)

The Evangelical Christian-Right claim to speak for the Bible, and sometimes for God himself. However, as we have seen, there appears to be something of a “disconnect” between the teaching of Jesus Christ (who, President Bush tells, us “changed my life”), and the behavior and policies of most of the “Christian” Right. I suggest that the word that describes such inconsistency might be “hypocrisy.” Jesus had a great deal to say about hypocrites.

Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites… This people honoureth me with their lips but their heart is far from me. (Mark 7:6-8)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widow’s houses, and for a prentence make long prayer; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (Matt. 23:14)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess…

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites… ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23: 23-28).


Bush’s morality, “the Bible and prayer to God,” does not appear to come from the same Bible or the same God I know. I argue, Bush could have read the Bible, if the definition of “read” means he pronounced all the words. Remember, for Bush comprehension is not necessary for reading. Since, Bush claims that he understands the Bible to be the literal word of God, he could not ignore above passages. Of course, there exists the possibility that certain parts of Bush’s Electronic Bible have been deleted/erased/burned, hmmm?


IN SUMMARY, I argue that Bush was/is not being “CONTROLLED” by Reason and Logic (Science), nor Jesus (the Bible). However, his educational policies are consistent with the Educational Platform put forth by the most vocal Evangelicals. In actuality, Bush’s policies have been most consistent with the Corporate Platform, which do not favor the majority of Americans, the middle-class and the poor. While proclaiming to add Christian values and Standards to Public Schools, he has eliminated the very reason why Reagan and Bush 41 has argued for building the internet and the “Information Highway.” Instead, Bush wants to direct all highways to Corporations where they can charge you extra money for selling you what was promised to be free.

Bush destroyed not only research contrary to the Evangelical educational agenda, Bush destroyed all information but a bare minimal to show that the Government’s Educational Website still exists. Now, instead of free information, Corporations now are willing to SELL you the information if you are willing to buy. This action enriched no one and resulted in a scarcity of the new commodity (knowledge) for the American people. Why should information be free, when a Corporation can make the people PAY for a good education? I claim that Bush is not being “Controlled,” he has work for this elite group. Some may argue it is his Evangelical Christian-Right world perspective (Anti-Intellectualism). I disagree, the Corporate Sponsors (Energy, Insurance, etc.) interests that most accurately describes his decision making process and his policies.

I believe he picked the administration he wanted, to do exactly what has happened, an Invasion and Occupation of Iraq/Evangelical Christian-Right values imposed on other Christians and religions. His administration was staffed with many members of a private elite-group, who have proclaimed for years to Invade Iraq for its oil. Bush has publicly proclaimed he was going to fill his “White House with Christians” (Evangelical Christian-Right).

I believe many good, well-intentioned, and loving American Christians have been deceived by hypocrites. The most powerful of these hypocrites have sold themselves out for 30 pieces of silver. The purpose is to fuse Christianity will with an elite group of “people.” The same “people” who are and will compensate President Bush when he leaves office (2004 or 2008) are the same “people” who compensate the most vocal Evangelical ministers. Follow the Gold.

Is Bush a puppet? I think all of us would have to agree that every president has someone advising him and sometimes making decisions for him. In my opinion thogh, I would say that his top "puppeteer" would be Dick Cheney instead of Karl Rove, especially since Dick seems to continually be two steps ahead of the Bush agenda when he speaks on "Meet the Press."

I do think Bush himself is clearly not running the White House single-handedly (he would have to be Superman!), especially because of some of the contradictions in his speeches, such as the one about Health Care just prior to Thanksgiving. I think that in itself hints at clashes that may happen sometimes behind closed doors.

So who's the man in charge? I would just simply say Bush has a lot of protection. There are many people who have him if he falls. People who can find ways to justify any mistakes that may abound while he is in office. In fact, I think Ted's statement perfectly shows the extent of his protection.



Protection. Nice, very nice.

Bush’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has been a failure, what group planned the attack? Bush’s NSS was promulgated by the Bush Administration in September 2002 -- now includes attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent-war strategy, etc. I argue this has been the plan of Group of GOOD OLD BOYS, who support US military supremacy and unilateral use of force to protect US national security interests (taking other people’s resources) around the world. A major component of Cold War anti-communism (McCarthyism or American-Fascism).

Some background information on the GOOD OLD BOYS.

While most of us Americans saw the end of the Cold War as a harbinger of a more peaceful globe, and we relaxed knowing that the communist world was no longer a threat to the U.S. The Soviet Union, our partner in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and Cold War rivalry around the globe, was no more. This meant a partial vacuum in international affairs. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The only major vacuum-filler still standing after the Cold War was the United States. One could continue traditional diplomacy on behalf of American ends -- the kind of polite, well-disguised defense of U.S. interests (largely corporate) and imperial ambition carried out under Bush#1, Reagan, Clinton, et al. -- knowing that we'd mostly get our way eventually given our status as the globe's only Superpower. Or one could try to speed up the process and accomplish those same ends overtly -- with an attitude of arrogance and in-your-face bullying -- within maybe one or two Republican administrations.

Some of the ideological roots of today's Bush Administration power-wielders could be traced back to political philosophers Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter or to GOP rightist Barry Goldwater and his rabid anti-communist followers in the early-1960s. But, for simplicity's sake let's stick closer to our own time.

In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century. (PNAC) Their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and ready to go, straight off-the-shelf into official policy.

This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House. But even given their reputations and clout, the views of this group were regarded as too extreme to be taken seriously by the mainstream conservatives that controlled the Republican Party.

Citation 1: www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Setting Up PNAC

To prepare the ground for the PNAC-like ideas that were circulating in the HardRight, various wealthy individuals and corporations helped set up far-right think-tanks, and bought up various media outlets -- newspapers, magazines, TV networks, radio talk shows, cable channels, etc. -- in support of that day when all the political tumblers would click into place and the PNAC cabal and their supporters could assume control.

This happened with the Supreme Court's selection of George W. Bush in 2000.

The "outsiders" from PNAC were now powerful "insiders," placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on U.S. policy: Cheney is Vice President, Rumsfeld is Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz is Deputy Defense Secretary, I. Lewis Libby is Cheney's Chief of Staff, Elliot Abrams is in charge of Middle East policy at the National Security Council, Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department, John Bolton is Undersecretary of State, Richard Perle is chair of the Defense Policy advisory board at the Pentagon, former CIA director James Woolsey is on that panel as well, etc. etc. (PNAC's chairman, Bill Kristol, is the editor of Rupert Murdoch's The Weekly Standard.) In short, PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.

But, in order to unleash their foreign/military campaigns without taking all sorts of flak from the traditional wing of the conservative GOP -- which was more isolationist, more opposed to expanding the role of the federal government, more opposed to military adventurism abroad -- they needed a context that would permit them free rein. The events of 9/11 rode to their rescue. (In one of their major reports, written in 2000, they noted that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.")

“Cheney headed up the task force, which drafted Bush's plan to dramatically expand the nation's ability to produce energy. Two Democratic congressman asked the GAO to launch the investigation into Cheney's task force in April (2001), suspecting Bush campaign supporters from the energy industry were getting extraordinary access.

While the White House claims to be cooperating, Cheney — through his attorney, David Addington — is refusing to release both the names of people who participated and the schedule of meetings. In letters sent May 16 and June 7, 2001, Addington has argued the GAO doesn't even have the right to ask for such information.”

Citation 2: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Da..._gao010625.html

One of the results of Chaney’s Energy Task Force was

Citation 3: http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/08/15_blackout.html
"In June of 2001, Bush opposed and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof that their legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) should pass. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration lobbied against it and the Republicans voted it down three separate times: First, on a straight party line in the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, then on a straight party line the U.S. House Rules Committee, and finally on a party line on the floor of the full House [Roll Call Vote #169, 6/20/01]." Why did Republicans block grid improvements? Because the transmission bottlenecks let Enron & Co. manipulate supplies to increase consumers contributions to the CORPORATIONS.


Chaney makes plans to invade Iraq in April, 2001. (BEFORE 911)
On July 17, 2003 the non-Partisan Judicial Watch, finally received part of the information the GAO could not obtain. Chaney’s Energy Task Force featured a map of Iraq oilfields, divided up in to parcels. Read and look at all three citations.
Citation 4: Judicial Watch Press Release
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml

Citation 5: Chaney’s Iraqi Oil-Map from April 2001. You will need Adobe to see it.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

Citation 6:Bush and Chaney act very guilty.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/enron/1695396

Lately, even other oil companies realized that this is Chaney’s game. Rivals Say Halliburton Dominates Iraq Oil Work.
Citation 7: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/08/business/08REBU.html

From 1985 to 1989 Chaney organized American corporations to sell Iraq Chemical and Biological Weapons. However, I must admit, I have never heard Chaney claim any religious belief.
Citation 8: http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/03/119547.php?theme=1

Chaney’s Halliburton makes a profit.
Citation 9: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.15A.iraq.us.names.htm



After 911, the Bush Administration used the fear generated in the general populace as their cover for enacting all sorts of draconian measures domestically (the Patriot Act, drafted earlier, was rushed through Congress in the days following 9/11; few members even read it), and as their rationalization for launching military campaigns abroad. (Don't get me wrong. The Islamic fanatics that use terror as their political weapon are real and deadly and need to be stopped.

The question is: How to do that in ways that enhance rather than detract from America's long-term national interests? We now have more terrorists, and more terrorists in the making than we had before, inferring the strategy is not working. Bush’s foreign policy was destined to fail. You can defeat an army, but you cannot occupy a country if you do not know the culture. The U.S. the Corporate Media was silent, when Bush put corporate men in charge of running the occupation. Bush is a puppet of Chaney's Oil buddies. But remember, Bush is not a One Corporation type of guy. He likes spreading himself around, like typhoid Mary.

8,371 words, oneofshibumi, and I'm yet to see any concrete evidence that President Bush doesn't make final decisions.

You've got a lot of proof that he has employees, and a cabinet (as specified in the Constitution), but have come very short in terms of providing actual evidence that directly answers the question to debate.

Who is in control of the Bush administration and what is his/her/their purpose?

Is Bush a puppet?

Come on, now! The President is only one person. Any president, regardless of party affiliation, is to a certain extent a "puppet" if one must use that term.

It is difficult to stay informed of everything occurring on a forum like this. Now imagine 285,000,000 members instead of 1,200 and it's easy to see that no one person can be 100% informed on all issues all the time.

Mike

Mike,

Bush is NOT a puppet. He is an Anti-Intellectual. Bush chose Chaney as Vice-President so the Oil companies could occupy the western half of Iraq. Bush wanted the Virgin Oil territories of Iraq. Chaney’s 2001 Energy Submit shows a map of Iraq, with the Western Iraqi territories.

Bush chooses members of National Security Militarists group, who wanted an unjustifiable war with Iraq. This group manufactured evidence and told lies to the American people, the U.N. and the world. Bush knew they were lies. Now the rest of the world knows Bush is a liar and he does not know what he is doing. Many countries are now boycotting American goods. Not the Corporate governments but the people pay more for non-American products.

Bush choose to raise farm subsidies, establish an expensive-inefficient new Medicare entitlement, and has cut taxes twice while failing to come up with a plan to pay for the ever increasing budget deficits. Estimates show a long-term budget gap of at least 25 percent of federal spending. In addition, he now talks about multi-billion dollar space travel. Have credit card (the people’s money) he can buy anything his silver-spoon mouth can utter. What George Akerlof, the Nobel laureate in economics called “a form of looting.” Now, even the Conservative economic journals, like “The Economist” are sounding the alarm.

The steel industry requested the continuation of the illegal tariffs and Bush complied. Europe was poised to impose several billion dollars in retaliatory tariffs. Collin Powell has no pull at the U.N. because no one believes a liar. Powell, the most powerful international influence tool Bush had in his community of members.

Bush may be an Anti-Intellectual. Bush knows he is greedy, but Bush does not know what he is doing. Because he is following the Corporate-friendly policies, espoused by the Right-Wing Think Tanks. The elite know they are stealing money from the public coffers. What makes Bush especially vicious is his destroying scientific information.

I hate to do it because I usually find this type of rebuttal to be annoying, but...


OK, that's an answer to the debate question. Good progress, I guess.

However, one must be sure to not contradict themselves, such as when you said below, "Bush is a puppet of Chaney's Oil buddies." You know, it's OK to say you don't like the guy. But it's not necessary to provide us with excessive amounts of inconsistent and loosely related information to prove there is a lack of foundation in your opinion.


How about you offer up some undeniable proof (of course, in a topic where it is actually relevant Like here... ) And by the way, it's C-h-e-n-e-y. I don't mean to be rude, but it's hard to consider these posts credible when the major players' names aren't properly spelled.


And what does that have to do with the topic? Others' perceptions certainly cannot be taken as fact. "Bush knew they were lies." Oh yeah? Prove it. "The rest of the world knows BUsh is a liar and does not know what he is doing." Oh yeah, prove it.


If he chose it, he is not a puppet. If it is not related to him being or not being a puppet, it does not belong in this topic.

There's this great document called the Constitution. It lays out the law of the land, and it says in Article. I. Section 1.:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

So it looks like you need to direct your resentment at the Congress.


This offers no proof to the question to debate, which you've already answered (apparently Bush is simultaneously a puppet and not a puppet ) And, by the way, the WTO and Steel Unions were the major players in that decision. The UN was not a factor.



"Anti-Intellectual." Fine. Whatever. This topic is about whether or not he makes the decisions. It sure seem like you are sending consistent mixed messages and incorrectly levying accusations at the incorrect government authorities.

Mike

Mike,

You are correct when you noticed two different events, one where Bush chose an action and one where he did not choose an action. You evaluated the contradiction, and reached a conclusion, “inconsistent and loosely related information to prove there is a lack of foundation.” What I was indicating was that I found a case where Bush was a puppet (Oil Corporations), and other cases where he was not a puppet. If in many situations Bush is not a puppet, and a find case where he is a puppet, what is he? The forum question-frame was structurally deficient in that it suggest a false dichotomy between “puppet or not puppet” that are neither mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive.

Napoleon III: Enlightened Statesman or Proto-Fascist?
The Causes of the War of 1812: National Honor or National Interest?
The Abolitionists: Reformers or Fanatics?
Jacksonian Democracy: Myth or Reality?
Is Plato a Democrat: Yes or No?
Is Bush a Puppet: Yes or No?
Do you still beat your wife: Yes or No?

Many of these questions are unsatisfactory in several ways at once. Some are grossly anachronistic; others encourage simple-minded moralizing. Most are very shallow. They are also imprecise, both in the dichotomous terms and in the troublesome connective “or,” which might mean “either X or Y but not both” (like the Latin aut ), or “either X or Y or both” (like the Latin vel: the use in my post ) or “either X or Y or both, or neither.” This ambiguity is not often clarified in context, and the reader receives no clear indication of what he is being asked to accomplish.




Mike, you are not being rude. You also never expressed an evaluation of the evidence presented about Chaney. Finally, you just did not get the gist of the Chaney-pun. You may or may not be aware of Chaney’s participation in the sale of World Com to the Chinese (Sold at rock bottom prices, even though World Com is heavily involved in military contracts). The use of “Chan” alludes to the Chinese connection. Chan-ey



I refer you to my answer in response 1.




We are in agreement Mike, the (American) Constitution is a great document. However, your message is ambiguous.

Are you saying you believe, “After Congress transferred the War Powers to the Executive Branch (Bush), Bush should not be held accountable for the Iraq War?

Or, are you saying you believe, “The Executive branch cannot send legislation or bills to Congress for approval.”

Or, are you saying you believe, “A person answering the question, “Is Bush a puppet?” should criticize the Congress.”

Or, are you saying you believe, “A person pointing out Bush’s distasteful activities should also point out the Congress’s distasteful activities.”

Or, are you trying to say something totally different?

5) This offers no proof to the question to debate, which you've already answered (apparently Bush is simultaneously a puppet and not a puppet ) And, by the way, the WTO and Steel Unions were the major players in that decision. The UN was not a factor.

The WTO is the successor of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which slowly developed through rounds of talks at the U.N. The last round of talks — the 1986-94 Uruguay Round — led to the WTO’s creation. However, I referred to the Statements by President Bush and Collin Powell to the U.N., which has caused a backlash by governments and their people. Finally, the major players in the case in question were the European as plaintiff and the U.S. as defendant. The WTO acted as “judge” and ruled the U.S’s policies as unfair trade practices. One European newspaper called the policy, “Bush’s new unilateral ‘Free Trade’ hypocrisy.”




Bush was not a puppet when he EARNED the label of Anti-Intellectual when “in May 2002, the Department of Education circulated an internal memo entitled “Criteria & Process for Removing Old Content from www.ed.gov.”[1] The memo explains that the www.ed.gov portal, the largest of the Department’s sites, lacks common design themes and navigational systems. Furthermore, it states that “[m]uch of the content on these pages is either outdated or runs counter to current Administration priorities.”[2] The memo instructs employees to remove all items dated earlier than February 2001 unless the item:

Is needed for a legal reason;
Supports No Child Left Behind or other Administration priorities and initiatives;
Is important for historical perspective (ie: statistical trends, the Nation at Risk report);
Is important for policy reasons identified by an Assistant Secretary; or
Is useful or valuable to parents, students, or educators and is consistent with the Administration’s philosophy.” In this case Bush is definitely not a puppet. However, DESTRUCTION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA is an ANTI-INTELLECTUAL act. Why should the information be free, you can BUY it from a corporation? And, so goes the dreams of Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton for a free public library for education.
SOURCE: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsan...e_education.htm




BUSH THE PUPPET
In my opinion, Bush knew and wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq in his first presidential term. I consider him a puppet because he did not realize the cost in lives, money, and reputation. Bush now realizes his main objective (Iraq War) has harmed the nation economically, and politically he has lost support at home. Abroad, the U.S. is distrusted demonstrated by the lack of further support on the War on Terror, economic direction, and of values.

Bush has no idea about energy policy, and he deferred that responsibility to Chaney. Chaney’s Energy Task Force Meeting 4 months before 911.

EVIDENCE:
Judicial Watch (JW) is a non-profit, public interest law firm dedicated to fighting government corruption.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/

On this JW page you find that Bush is as guilty as Clinton in trying to smear JW. In case you are not familiar with JW, they are the group that took Clinton to court 8 times and Mr. Jan…, uhhh, I mean Ms. Janet Reno, twice. I consider Judicial Watch a highly reliable information source on legal issues.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2364.shtml

On this JW page describes what is known about Chaney’s April, 2001 meeting planning with Oil Corporations before 911. Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_PR.shtml

In June of 2001, Bush opposed and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof that their legislation U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) should pass.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration lobbied against it and the Republicans voted it down three separate times: First, on a straight party line in the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, then on a straight party line the U.S. House Rules Committee, and finally on a party line on the floor of the full House [Roll Call Vote #169, 6/20/01].

As the New York Times (06/14/01) reported at the time, “…the amendment would have amendments that would have doubled the bill's money for energy assistance for the poor to $600 "provided $350 million to support loans to improve the capacity of transmission grids. 'It's pure demagoguery,' House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said in a brief interview regarding the Democratic amendments. 'If Democrats had an energy policy, they'd have had one in the last eight years. They have no credibility on this issue whatsoever. They are responsible for the energy crunch more than anybody I know.' Spotlighting the high political stakes, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., took the unusual step of issuing a written statement about the committee's energy votes. He said President Bush and Republicans are 'committed to helping the Big Energy special interests' and accused them of obstruction." Does anyone remember the Northeast Blackout?

Around this time, was tracking some Saudis, and Big Oil business began to call his superiors to lay off. FBI Deputy Director John O’Neill resigned from Washington headquarters in August 2001, complaining that Big Oil interests were interfering with his investigation of Saudi Terrorism. Two weeks later, on September 11, he was killed while working at his new job as head of security at the World Trade Center.
www.rememberjohn.com

CNN, January 9, 2002: “President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation.”

CONCLUSION: Bush has demonstrated many examples where he acted on his own (not a puppet). If Bush deserves the label puppet, it would be for the Oil-Corporations. Bush’s domestic and international policies have been consistent with Oil-Corporations interests. Bush selected an administration that would create a context to invade Iraq. Bush would not have chosen this Invade Iraq policy if he had chosen a balanced advisory staff. I do not think that Bush knew the cost in lives, money, prestige and support these policies would have (puppet). Is Bush a puppet, usually no. Bush is a puppet when it comes to the Oil-Corporation interests.

Many old-fashioned conservatives have changed/admitted their views on Bush. In The American Conservative’s Doug Bandow article , “Righteous Anger: The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush.” Bandow writes, “Now Jonathan Chait of the New Republic says simply, “I hate President George W. Bush.” Not one to hold back, he explains, “You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.” More concisely, charges James Traub in the New York Times Magazine, “George Bush is a craven, lazy, hypocritical nitwit.”

“First, George W. Bush, despite laudable personal and family characteristics, is remarkably incurious and ill read. Gut instincts can carry even a gifted politician only so far. And a lack of knowledge leaves him vulnerable to simplistic remedies to complex problems, especially when it comes to turning America into the globe’s governess.”
http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/cover.html

Fair-minded Conservatives and the Liberals agree on this point, “Bush is an ANTI-INTELLECTUAL.” In my opinion, when it comes to the interests of the OIL-CORPORATIONS Bush is a puppet.

Respectfully,

Daniel

Thanks for the evidence Nebraska!

hehe, ask and you shall receive...

It is ecelent timing that I have just recenlty finished reading an article titled "the mind of George W. Bush" in The Atlantic Monthly. It was actauuly a very even-handed article that somewhat takes GW's side in the debate about his competence. However, many of his limitations are brought out for discussion.
It's nice of them to make it available online

I feel cheated..I have been paying for this magazine and the article was easily found online!! I object! LOL

It is interesting to me that many of the points brought up in this discussion turn up on the pages of that article: significantly Bush's limited scope based upon his choice of advisors.

The battle for his ear began in 1998 when he was Governor. It disturbs me that the GOP already knew he was their man that early and makes me wonder how much reality there is to primaries. I watched a documentary (which included interviews with all the major players) about the battle over bush's mind that began in Texas with the major players visiting him and coaching him on policy. Odd how these people weren't also sent to John McCain's home!
Either way, it seems clear that Bush was chosen for his maleability. He was an open vessel for the ideology battle in the Republican camp.

Edit: Oneofshibumi's post was concurrent with mine. amazing post!!!
Hard to argue against such a wel-thought out and defended post. I would like ot see someone counter it with facts and/or good argument. The usual response to something that exhaustive is more emotional than thoughful. Great post again Daniel...

La Herring Rouge,

When I read you words I feel happy because I wanted others to understand the damage that is occurring to the U.S. Government and education system. Do you remember the Houston Education miracle that Bush would share/impose on the rest of the U.S.? We now find out, similar to many miracle-claims, results from the hand or mind of man.
Gains in Houston Schools: How Real Are They?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/national/03HOUS.html

The article The M