Several weeks ago my time became even more scarce, and I no longer had time to work on my blog, or my campaign at all.
My apologies to those extremely few individuals out there who I managed to get at least somewhat interested in my campaign.
In light of this, I no longer urge that voters vote for me. I won't get anywhere near the number of votes I would need for the possibility of an extra vote to have any chance of any interesting effect. Furthermore, I didn't even get around to officially registering as a write-in candidate in Idaho.
Although I will be very happy when Obama wins, I endorse Nader.
Hopefully in four years I will start earlier and have more time, and run a much better write-in campaign, one which doesn't completely stall around a month before election day.
Thanks to those who actually bothered to read some of my blog entries and perhaps open their minds a bit, and to those whose initial reaction wasn't to scoff or express skepticism. Those of you are very few in number, and I hereby express my deep appreciation to you.
Brian
P.S. The two of you who gave me donation money will get it back in the near future, as I thus never got around spending it.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
presidential debate #1
There are many things I could say, but I will restrict myself to four.
1. Why the hell wasn't I invited?
2. In the "rational argument" sense, Obama won by a significant margin. (Actually, I think there are even multiple ways of evaluating in an "rational argument" sense, but since I think what I say holds for all of those, I won't take the time to distinguish.)
I don't have anywhere near the time to give a line by line commentary on the transcript in defense of my claim. But here is a very helpful illustration. McCain spent a lot of his time (time he could've spent in the service of rational argument) talking about how he has seen the mountains of Pakistan, seen a poster of Putin labelled "Our President" in Georgia, etc. However, as I hope a moment's thought will make obvious, such things do nothing to make it the case that McCain is better able to deal with foreign-policy issues (such as those concerning Pakistan and Georgia).
You might think that the point here was his greater experience; after all, McCain also mentioned having talked to so-and-so high-level political figure of Pakistan. (Though, in fact, if you pay close attention to how he was saying these things, I think it was pretty clear that the primary message he was usually intending to convey with such remarks was simply that he had been to these places. It was in other comments that the primary message was his experience.) But, look, by far the most important thing we want in a president when it comes to these foreign-policy issues is the setting up of the proper middle-level goals, and what is needed for that is:
A. the proper high-level moral and national-interest goals, and
B. intellectual grasp of the relevant facts
(most importantly, the extremely various kinds of facts
which determine how other political leaders will make
choices in the face of various sets of circumstances).
Having seen the mountains of Pakistan, or even having talked so-and-so high-level leader of Pakistan, does nothing to make McCain better in these respects.
(This very much relates to a point that Obama has made many times, namely, that what we most directly wanted a president is judgment, not experience - a point that is surely right. And he frequently notes that, not only is experience far from a sure means to judgment, there are other ways to acquire judgment - another point that, once you take a moment to think about it, is obviously right.)
Of course, that's not all of it. We also want a president who is skilled in diplomacy and deal-brokering. However, a lot of that involves more general skills of articulation, dealing with opposing forces with different views, etc., and it is entirely clear that Obama has proven himself in these respects throughout his campaign (indeed, proven himself better than McCain). Some of it, however, surely has to do with more narrow skills having to do with how to manage the particular situation of one-on-one conversation with another high-level political leader, how to deal with their egos, etc. In this respect, McCain does have more experience, and it does make it somewhat more likely he will, in this particular respect (at least at the outset), be better than Obama at this sort of thing. (However, it makes it far from certain, since some people don't learn from experience, and since McCain's actual experience with such things is frequently exaggerated).
This is not, of course, to say that McCain didn't win (in the "rational argument" sense) on a few points here and there. And it's also not to say that McCain's goal even was to win in the "rational argument" sense. He is aiming for a different kind of voter, one who is (statistically speaking) more likely to be swayed by things other than rational argument (and instead more by things like references to Ronald Reagan and exclamations about the greatness of America).
3. Even if McCain's main goal in the debate were to win in the "rational argument" sense, he almost surely still would have lost. But, what I want to note here, is that such a fact is far from ideal evidence that Obama would be a better president.
Winning, even in the "rational argument" sense, in a one-on-one debate in such a specialized forum involves some narrow skills that probably are not relevant that often when it comes to the various tasks and activities of being president. I have made quite clear in other blog entries that I think a high level of general thinking skills is extremely important in the president. However, having such skills is far from sufficient for succeeding in debate in the "rational argument" sense.
For just one example, succeeding in debate in this sense requires the skill of being able to pay careful attention to, and be sensitive to, very short amounts of time while also talking (such as making sure you don't waste all of your two minutes responding only to the first of those three points that your opponent just made). But when it comes to any important decision a president has to make, there is always much more than two minutes to do so (and so much more than two minutes to review the relevant reasons); and so it really matters very little whether the president is prone to get distracted and spend a few more minutes (or even hours) than is really necessary (or better: appropriate, given other pressing matters) on some particular point. (Though there is a limit to this, which is how we can construe one point Obama was making. If you let Iraq almost completely distract you from other foreign-policy issues for seven years, some undesirable things are likely to happen - as they in fact did.)
4. It really really really annoyed me when very near the end of the debate, McCain charged Obama with "parsing words" when Obama was simply trying to make a certain distinction necessary to careful thinking. Even though perhaps sometimes politically wise in the "campaign strategy" sense (at least on the conservative right), it drives me nuts when a candidate appeals to the anti-intellectual, anti-careful-thinking element of the voting populace.
1. Why the hell wasn't I invited?
2. In the "rational argument" sense, Obama won by a significant margin. (Actually, I think there are even multiple ways of evaluating in an "rational argument" sense, but since I think what I say holds for all of those, I won't take the time to distinguish.)
I don't have anywhere near the time to give a line by line commentary on the transcript in defense of my claim. But here is a very helpful illustration. McCain spent a lot of his time (time he could've spent in the service of rational argument) talking about how he has seen the mountains of Pakistan, seen a poster of Putin labelled "Our President" in Georgia, etc. However, as I hope a moment's thought will make obvious, such things do nothing to make it the case that McCain is better able to deal with foreign-policy issues (such as those concerning Pakistan and Georgia).
You might think that the point here was his greater experience; after all, McCain also mentioned having talked to so-and-so high-level political figure of Pakistan. (Though, in fact, if you pay close attention to how he was saying these things, I think it was pretty clear that the primary message he was usually intending to convey with such remarks was simply that he had been to these places. It was in other comments that the primary message was his experience.) But, look, by far the most important thing we want in a president when it comes to these foreign-policy issues is the setting up of the proper middle-level goals, and what is needed for that is:
A. the proper high-level moral and national-interest goals, and
B. intellectual grasp of the relevant facts
(most importantly, the extremely various kinds of facts
which determine how other political leaders will make
choices in the face of various sets of circumstances).
Having seen the mountains of Pakistan, or even having talked so-and-so high-level leader of Pakistan, does nothing to make McCain better in these respects.
(This very much relates to a point that Obama has made many times, namely, that what we most directly wanted a president is judgment, not experience - a point that is surely right. And he frequently notes that, not only is experience far from a sure means to judgment, there are other ways to acquire judgment - another point that, once you take a moment to think about it, is obviously right.)
Of course, that's not all of it. We also want a president who is skilled in diplomacy and deal-brokering. However, a lot of that involves more general skills of articulation, dealing with opposing forces with different views, etc., and it is entirely clear that Obama has proven himself in these respects throughout his campaign (indeed, proven himself better than McCain). Some of it, however, surely has to do with more narrow skills having to do with how to manage the particular situation of one-on-one conversation with another high-level political leader, how to deal with their egos, etc. In this respect, McCain does have more experience, and it does make it somewhat more likely he will, in this particular respect (at least at the outset), be better than Obama at this sort of thing. (However, it makes it far from certain, since some people don't learn from experience, and since McCain's actual experience with such things is frequently exaggerated).
This is not, of course, to say that McCain didn't win (in the "rational argument" sense) on a few points here and there. And it's also not to say that McCain's goal even was to win in the "rational argument" sense. He is aiming for a different kind of voter, one who is (statistically speaking) more likely to be swayed by things other than rational argument (and instead more by things like references to Ronald Reagan and exclamations about the greatness of America).
3. Even if McCain's main goal in the debate were to win in the "rational argument" sense, he almost surely still would have lost. But, what I want to note here, is that such a fact is far from ideal evidence that Obama would be a better president.
Winning, even in the "rational argument" sense, in a one-on-one debate in such a specialized forum involves some narrow skills that probably are not relevant that often when it comes to the various tasks and activities of being president. I have made quite clear in other blog entries that I think a high level of general thinking skills is extremely important in the president. However, having such skills is far from sufficient for succeeding in debate in the "rational argument" sense.
For just one example, succeeding in debate in this sense requires the skill of being able to pay careful attention to, and be sensitive to, very short amounts of time while also talking (such as making sure you don't waste all of your two minutes responding only to the first of those three points that your opponent just made). But when it comes to any important decision a president has to make, there is always much more than two minutes to do so (and so much more than two minutes to review the relevant reasons); and so it really matters very little whether the president is prone to get distracted and spend a few more minutes (or even hours) than is really necessary (or better: appropriate, given other pressing matters) on some particular point. (Though there is a limit to this, which is how we can construe one point Obama was making. If you let Iraq almost completely distract you from other foreign-policy issues for seven years, some undesirable things are likely to happen - as they in fact did.)
4. It really really really annoyed me when very near the end of the debate, McCain charged Obama with "parsing words" when Obama was simply trying to make a certain distinction necessary to careful thinking. Even though perhaps sometimes politically wise in the "campaign strategy" sense (at least on the conservative right), it drives me nuts when a candidate appeals to the anti-intellectual, anti-careful-thinking element of the voting populace.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
comments
In this entry, I will offer a continually updated list of comments I post to some of my own blog entries. It is in these comments that I will reply to what others say in comments they post on my original entries. Depending on various factors, it may take me a little while to get these responses written. I will list by date and blog entry commented upon. (I will not indicate in "updates and additions" under "updates" when this blog entry is updated.)
"self-promotion" under "basics" (original post date 9/16)
- comment 9/23
"taxes" under "issues" (original post date 9/18)
- comment 9/24
"the (likely) near singularity" under "issues" (original post date 9/16)
- comment 9/25
"self-promotion" under "basics" (original post date 9/16)
- comment 9/23
"taxes" under "issues" (original post date 9/18)
- comment 9/24
"the (likely) near singularity" under "issues" (original post date 9/16)
- comment 9/25
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
media bias
Although not as hot a topic as it once was, and also not one that offers a really good way to choose among presidential candidates, I nonetheless decided I would share some thoughts.
I don't offer any thoughts of the form "the media on the whole has a liberal bias" or "Fox news has a conservative bias". Rather, I just say a few words on perhaps how we should understand the concept of media bias. (These are thoughts I formulated over five years ago when engaging in brief e-mail correspondence with my brother-in-law about the topic of media bias. I have not carefully reviewed them since, so I might no longer be entirely happy with them. But since my main goal is to get people thinking about this issue of concept understanding, and since I have other things to write, and many non-campaign things to do, thought I would go ahead and share.)
This attempt at concept understanding is important, because: if we understand "media bias" one way, it could turn out that media bias is very common but not a bad thing; but if we understand "media bias" another way, it could turn out that it is obviously a bad thing, but arguably nonexistent (or at least much less common than is often claimed).
(This is similar to how, four years ago, when my brother jumped on the Swiftboat -- John Kerry betrayed his fellow soldiers in Vietnam; betrayal is bad; therefore John Kerry is evil -- I tried to get him to slow down by noting it is important how we understand "betrayal". I wanted to get him to see that: if we understand "betrayal" one way, it might turn out that John Kerry did betray his fellow soldiers in Vietnam, but that then betrayal is not obviously or necessarily a bad thing; but if we understand "betrayal" another way, it might turn out that betrayal is obviously and necessarily a bad thing, but that Kerry did not betray his fellow soldiers. His reaction was to claim I was "playing with words" and attempt to mock me. It is sad when someone as freakishly smart as my brother comes to think [because of really unfortunate cultural attitudes] that this is an appropriate argumentative reaction to discussion of that sort.)
Okay, here we go....
I don't offer any thoughts of the form "the media on the whole has a liberal bias" or "Fox news has a conservative bias". Rather, I just say a few words on perhaps how we should understand the concept of media bias. (These are thoughts I formulated over five years ago when engaging in brief e-mail correspondence with my brother-in-law about the topic of media bias. I have not carefully reviewed them since, so I might no longer be entirely happy with them. But since my main goal is to get people thinking about this issue of concept understanding, and since I have other things to write, and many non-campaign things to do, thought I would go ahead and share.)
This attempt at concept understanding is important, because: if we understand "media bias" one way, it could turn out that media bias is very common but not a bad thing; but if we understand "media bias" another way, it could turn out that it is obviously a bad thing, but arguably nonexistent (or at least much less common than is often claimed).
(This is similar to how, four years ago, when my brother jumped on the Swiftboat -- John Kerry betrayed his fellow soldiers in Vietnam; betrayal is bad; therefore John Kerry is evil -- I tried to get him to slow down by noting it is important how we understand "betrayal". I wanted to get him to see that: if we understand "betrayal" one way, it might turn out that John Kerry did betray his fellow soldiers in Vietnam, but that then betrayal is not obviously or necessarily a bad thing; but if we understand "betrayal" another way, it might turn out that betrayal is obviously and necessarily a bad thing, but that Kerry did not betray his fellow soldiers. His reaction was to claim I was "playing with words" and attempt to mock me. It is sad when someone as freakishly smart as my brother comes to think [because of really unfortunate cultural attitudes] that this is an appropriate argumentative reaction to discussion of that sort.)
Okay, here we go....
The following is the beginnings of an attempt to analyze the concept of bias as it applies to media outlets. This is important, because people make accusation of bias without clearly understanding bias.
A media outlet M is biased iff
(i) M claims to be neutral, and
(ii) M is not neutral.
A media outlet M is neutral iff
(i) M chooses the topics/questions it addresses in accord with the actual interests of its intended audience, and
(ii) M’s discussion of views on/answers to these topics/questions is fair, i.e.,
(a) M chooses what views to express, who to interview, etc., in accord with actual views of experts on the chosen topic/question (answer neutrality), and
(b) M’s own presentation in this discussion implies/implicates no claim which violates answer-neutrality (and no claim which is likely to be construed as supporting a claim which violates answer neutrality).
Comments:
(i) – Given the reference to intended audience, one might think the analysis need not go through the middle step of “neutrality”; e.g., Z magazine’s intended audience is not all Americans, whereas it is for CBS, etc. Actually, I’m not sure this is true, at least for its hoped-for audience – its intended audience maybe can’t be so broad only because it’s not in a position to justifiably believe its actual audience will in fact be all Americans (or at least Americans which cut across all interesting categories). But even if it is, this middle step is still required because Z magazine does not claim to achieve answer-neutrality – since it doesn’t claim this, its failure to achieve it should not count as bias. To put the point in dramatic (though imperfect) fashion: what’s wrong with a cash-strapped magazine publishing far-left views, when readers are not led to believe this is neutral reporting, and when readers interested in other views have many other magazines they can turn to?
(ii,a) – When it comes to the simple occurrence of events, there will be no controversy, or at least they themselves, as reporters, journalists, etc., will be as much an expert as anyone else. Consequently, (ii,a) will be trivially satisfied (though not necessarily (ii,b) since its presentation could still be unfair by implying a claim which violates answer-neutrality when it comes to a topic/question not of this sort). But all other topics/questions will be non-trivial in this sense, including questions about events long ago, non-moral interpretation of events (causes, motives, larger trends, etc.), moral questions, both theoretical and those applied to events, interpretation of events, etc.
(ii,b) – Here I have in mind, for example, a reporter’s labeling all conservatives as conservatives, but not likewise for liberals, thus implying it is specifically conservatives who are outside the mainstream (see Goldberg). This violates (ii,b) (if it does at all), by suggesting conservative views are wacky (or something like that), thus implying a claim which violates answer-neutrality when it comes to those topics/questions at dispute between conservatives and others. (If this makes for unfair reporting simply because it implies a false claim – namely, that it is specifically conservatives who are outside of the mainstream – then (ii,b) will have to make reference to any implied false claim. But this strikes me as too strong for the concept of bias. A reporter can get something wrong, say, someone’s age, without thereby exhibiting bias. Maybe to ensure my analysis doesn’t have such a false implication, I need to explicitly refer in (ii) to the non-trivial topics/questions in the sense I explain in my comment on (ii,a) above.)
(i) and (ii,a) – I speak of a media outlet’s choice being “in accord” with something. Given time-constraints and like issues for media outlets, the point maybe could be put more exactly by saying that attached priorities are in positive linear relationship to degree of actual interest (i) or actual popularity of view (ii,a).
Monday, September 22, 2008
healthcare
In accord with my "policy details" entry under "issues", I don't really have any details to offer when it comes to health care. But, still, I have some thoughts:
1. As I've noted in a few spots elsewhere, I endorse some sort of national healthcare system which provides at least minimally decent health care for every US citizen. This includes US citizens who, for whatever exact reason, do not (or would not, absent this universal coverage) have independent coverage because they are lazy or irresponsible (or stupid). This explicit inclusion of the lazy and irresponsible has in particular been mentioned in a few previous blog entries, most recently and importantly in "more on taxes" under "issues". I have no remotely firm views on whether this universal coverage should be (because most efficiently) achieved through relatively direct governmental provision, or instead something that is provided through employers or in some other private fashion, just in accord with governmental requirements. Offhand, though, I must admit, it seems like certain desirable features of an individual's health care, such as portability, would be more efficiently achieved through some more kind of direct governmental provision. But this is just my best guess (and nothing more than) about one of the very many considerations that would need to be taken into account to decide this practical issue.
But the relevant high-level view is: minimally decent universal coverage that is ultimately governmentally required and funded. (As discussed in "policy details" under "issues" - and in a few other spots - it's in part on the basis of these sorts of claims that I think a careful and responsible voter should choose her candidate.)
Thankfully less in fashion right now, it wasn't long ago when you were apt to be branded a "socialist" for endorsing such a view. Here's what I have to say about this.
A. Let "strong socialism" label the view that there should be no private legal property of any sort. Let "weak socialism" label the view that there should be no private legal property in the means of production. So understanding these terms, universal health coverage is socialist in neither the strong nor weak sense.
B. Let "super-weak socialism" label the view that the government should provide certain goods and services to its citizens, something funded by taxation (and so, in most cases, something funded by taking money from some to pay for goods and services provided to others). (By the way, I offer this label out of generosity to my opponent; it is not really socialist in any traditional or interesting sense. The proper label is "welfare capitalist".) Then, in that case, universal health coverage is super-weak-socialist. But, at the same time, the United States has then been a super-weak-socialist country for quite a long time. Granted, it's establishing universal health coverage (while changing nothing else) would mean that the US comes to be a bit more super-weak-socialist than it previously had been. But I'm fine with that, and it would be silly to let a mere label (even one containing the word "socialist") to stand in place for a real argument.
My basic thought is simply: on the whole, the United States is quite wealthy; even if some do (or would, absent universal coverage) deserve their situation of having no health coverage (say, due to laziness, irresponsibility, stupidity, etc.), it still would be a morally good thing if they were to have coverage; so the United States should providing universal coverage to its citizens.
Some may object that it is still bad/wrong, since it involves taking money from some (money they own and/or our money they earned and so deserve) and giving to others, but I have dealt with such objections in "more on taxes" under "issues".
Others may object that significant taxation for this or any purpose is just overall bad (because a detriment to the economy, yadda yadda, ..., ..., ... trickle down ..., everyone (supposedly) suffers), but I've dealt with such objections in "taxes" under "issues".
2. non-US citizens, e.g., legal and illegal immigrants
3. 2-tier
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TO BE FINISHED VERY SOON
1. As I've noted in a few spots elsewhere, I endorse some sort of national healthcare system which provides at least minimally decent health care for every US citizen. This includes US citizens who, for whatever exact reason, do not (or would not, absent this universal coverage) have independent coverage because they are lazy or irresponsible (or stupid). This explicit inclusion of the lazy and irresponsible has in particular been mentioned in a few previous blog entries, most recently and importantly in "more on taxes" under "issues". I have no remotely firm views on whether this universal coverage should be (because most efficiently) achieved through relatively direct governmental provision, or instead something that is provided through employers or in some other private fashion, just in accord with governmental requirements. Offhand, though, I must admit, it seems like certain desirable features of an individual's health care, such as portability, would be more efficiently achieved through some more kind of direct governmental provision. But this is just my best guess (and nothing more than) about one of the very many considerations that would need to be taken into account to decide this practical issue.
But the relevant high-level view is: minimally decent universal coverage that is ultimately governmentally required and funded. (As discussed in "policy details" under "issues" - and in a few other spots - it's in part on the basis of these sorts of claims that I think a careful and responsible voter should choose her candidate.)
Thankfully less in fashion right now, it wasn't long ago when you were apt to be branded a "socialist" for endorsing such a view. Here's what I have to say about this.
A. Let "strong socialism" label the view that there should be no private legal property of any sort. Let "weak socialism" label the view that there should be no private legal property in the means of production. So understanding these terms, universal health coverage is socialist in neither the strong nor weak sense.
B. Let "super-weak socialism" label the view that the government should provide certain goods and services to its citizens, something funded by taxation (and so, in most cases, something funded by taking money from some to pay for goods and services provided to others). (By the way, I offer this label out of generosity to my opponent; it is not really socialist in any traditional or interesting sense. The proper label is "welfare capitalist".) Then, in that case, universal health coverage is super-weak-socialist. But, at the same time, the United States has then been a super-weak-socialist country for quite a long time. Granted, it's establishing universal health coverage (while changing nothing else) would mean that the US comes to be a bit more super-weak-socialist than it previously had been. But I'm fine with that, and it would be silly to let a mere label (even one containing the word "socialist") to stand in place for a real argument.
My basic thought is simply: on the whole, the United States is quite wealthy; even if some do (or would, absent universal coverage) deserve their situation of having no health coverage (say, due to laziness, irresponsibility, stupidity, etc.), it still would be a morally good thing if they were to have coverage; so the United States should providing universal coverage to its citizens.
Some may object that it is still bad/wrong, since it involves taking money from some (money they own and/or our money they earned and so deserve) and giving to others, but I have dealt with such objections in "more on taxes" under "issues".
Others may object that significant taxation for this or any purpose is just overall bad (because a detriment to the economy, yadda yadda, ..., ..., ... trickle down ..., everyone (supposedly) suffers), but I've dealt with such objections in "taxes" under "issues".
2. non-US citizens, e.g., legal and illegal immigrants
3. 2-tier
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TO BE FINISHED VERY SOON
Saturday, September 20, 2008
flyers explanation
I decided to put some of my flyers on the blog. Because of formatting differences, they will sometimes look a little weird as displayed in reading mode. I can't (easily) discover a way to attach files to a blogspot blog (but if there is a way, I'd appreciate you letting me know). If you would like copies of the original, e-mail me and I'd be more than happy to reply with the flyers attached.
ad flyer 9/19/08
a part-time but fully serious write-in presidential campaign, by a professor of philosophy at Boise State University
BRIAN KIERLAND FOR PRESIDENT
IRAQ: Aren't you sick and tired of politicians (on both sides) pretending that what would happen
if the US were to stay – or leave – is anything but very difficult to predict?
EQUALITY: Is neo-con, trickle-down economics (if at all correct) so correct that
it justifies the quite large and ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor?
HUMANITARISM: Are you really comfortable buying that new CD (let alone that six-figure sports car) when the same money could save many (often very many) individuals in “third-world” countries from starvation or desperate poverty? Perhaps the government should help us do what we know we ought.
PUTIN: Shouldn’t you be more afraid of him?
CAMPAIGN REFORM: Aren’t you sick and tired of money (especially from large corporations and
special interests groups) having such an influence on politics? Aren’t you tired of only two choices?
HEALTH CARE: Isn’t it also a good thing for the lazy and irresponsible?
MARIJUANA: How does anyone figure smoking pot is more dangerous to society than drinking alcohol? And think of the tax revenues….
RELAXATION: Stressed? Why not a Secretary of Relaxation?
IMMIGRATION: Mexicans are people too. And it's reasonable they want to come here.
Do you want to go work in Mexico?
SOLAR POWER: Do you have any idea how much energy can be garnered from the sun?
RIGHTS OF THE YOUTH: Does it really seem right that the government can draft 18 yos.,
but they don't have the legal right to drink alcohol?
TERRORISM: Is trying to kill terrorists after they've already come to hate us and purchased some guns
really the only way to fight it?
GLOBAL WARMING: When over 99% of environmental scientists agree, shouldn't you (the non-expert)?
EDUCATION: Do you really think that “throwing money at the problem” would be no good all?
What about halving average class sizes and increasing average teacher quality by 50%?
Seems to me that would help a lot. Which is not to say other changes wouldn’t as well….
TAXES: Why wouldn’t spending tax revenues on health care, relaxation, ESL for immigrants, solar power, diplomatic training, environmental clean-up, education, and the poor (who then spend it on cheap food) boost those sectors of the economy (the solar power, diplomatic training, cheap food sectors, etc.)?
For more info go to: http://kierlandforprez.blogspot.com
Or e-mail: kierlandforprez@gmail.com
approved by the Kierland Campaign, 9/19/08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
