aceventura3

This is a fundamental problem. There is data that supports my view, you just don't like it, so then you say there is no data - "WTF?" Then you create a strawman argument, that a fool would hire someone based solely on one measure - "WTF?" So, now I am left with a dilemma - do I respond in a manner that illustrates how a decision like this is made and how the deciding factor among qualified candidates may come down to one or two factors. This general decision making 101 explanation then offends people who then say that I am stating the obvious, or I come across as offensive because I can't believe what I am having to explain and will do it in a mocking manner. It is a no win situation. so I choose the latter.

Duncan is highly educated and in charge of the third largest school district in the nation, these factors alone make him worthy of consideration. He has lead the school district to some improvements, he has accomplished some of his goals, he has the respect of many of the constituents interested in Chicago schools, i.e., teachers, parents, business, political leaders, etc., all of that is good and he could be put on a short list. Now it get interesting, what final criteria do we use to make the final selection, and then how much weight do we give to each? Here is a clue - the decision maker decides, or as Bush would put it - "I am the decider". The decision made tells us a little bit about the "decider". In this case, Duncan has not completed his job in Chicago. Chicago schools are well below the national averages in almost every measure of a successful school district (If you don't think that is true and is not a fact, I challenge you to show me, I have already given some reference sources, and you don't like them), the Chicago school system is failing, so it is clear that Obama did not use actual performace as a criteria for the selection, or if he did he put a secondary weight to it. So, the question is what was given primary weight? An honest person can admit when they select someone based on familiarity, loyalty or some other intangiable. And that is all I have put on the table, my belief is the selection was cronyism, I could be wrong but I have not seen anything to contradict my view.

"New direction?" I stated several times that the US under Obama won't be much different than the US under Bush, just the US was not much different than when Clinton was President. The "new direction", "change is coming", etc, etc, are campaign slogans. As Pelosi recently told one of Obama's guys, "This is a House matter, we will handle it", Obama is not going to change anything without the buy in of others. The bush myth that is perpetuated is that Bush acted unilaterally, that is B.S. and we know it. the dissatisfaction ratings Bush has are related to a war weary nation in a recession and is related to the overall dissatisfaction with Washington politics as evidenced by Congress' approval rating.

I repeat, I am willing to give Obama a chance. And, I think his public works announcement may be the spark to triggers renewed economic growth. I have said that in the past as well. My view of Obama is not blinded by my dislike of him, the way manny liberals were blinded by their hate of Bush.

You presented nothing to dispute what I have stated, the information I have provided or the references I pointed to. Your fantasy like view as illustrated above,and it is repeated, is interesting and I think I have gotten a handle on why. Every once in awhile it is worth the effort to step outside of the box and take a look in, it is very worth while. And the funny thing is when you go back into the box, it is alot more fun.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 05 : 35 : 33-----
I did not think that issue was in doubt. I thought anyone who reads my posts on this forum when they involved Obama would have known I don't like him. I also thought I gave reasons why I don't like him. Perhaps, I engage in tautology more. Learned that word here, it means needlessly repeating an idea. Did I tell you that I don't like Obama.



There is a difference between doing positive things and being the best qualified person. When I payed football, I did some positive things on the field, but that did not get me an NFL contract. Gee, I wish I had you as my agent.


Why don't you folks respond to my premise. I think the selection was cronyism. Even cronies can do good things in the jobs they get, but sometimes you want the best. I would certainly pick BFF for somethings just becasue he/she is my BFF, but when results are most important, I go based on someone who can get the job done and has a proven track record. I would not want a trainee doing surgery on me, do you?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."