The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0  
 

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  ActiveWin.com Book of the Day: Breaking Windows: How Bill Gates Fumbled the Future of Microsoft
Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein

David Bank's Breaking Windows offers a scathing inside look at the past few tumultuous years at the Microsoft Corporation. Bank, who covers the company for The Wall Street Journal, bases this well-written tale on interviews he has conducted with most major players (including Bill Gates), along with boxes of e-mails and other documents that "provided an unprecedented glimpse into strategic debates and internal decision-making processes of a company that had long restricted outside access to its insular corporate culture." Through them he shows how Microsoft, which always put software above everything--and in more recent years made Windows its number-one priority--has scrambled and squabbled as first the Internet and then the U.S. government forced major directional changes and significant internal reevaluations.

Read Only Comments
Return to News
  Displaying Comments 1 through 54 of 54
  This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.
#1 By 1868 (141.133.153.147) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 01:51:11 AM
Looks like I'm adding this to my collection just to get the "juicy" details, besides always better to understand the insights and lunacy of a company with close to 50 billion in the bank.

#2 By 931 (67.35.67.246) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 01:54:49 AM
I'm really interested in how a company who eventually dominates nearly every market it gets into and while doing it can accumulate 40 billion in reserves while at the same time continues to create value for it's investors and customers has some how fumbled it's future.

One can say many many things about microsoft, that they've fumbled thier future is not one of them.

#3 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 02:23:42 AM
Guys, stop bashing a book none of you have read.

It's a really great read. I'm sure you'll all agree with what he has to say.

#4 By 8589 (66.169.174.102) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 08:37:08 AM
RMD, are you saying you have read it? If so, when did you get your copy? Did you read it from cover to cover? What can you add to what has been written here that will prove what you say about agreeing with it?

thanks

#5 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 09:31:32 AM
#5 - I read it probably 2 years ago. I've mentioned it on this site MANY times.

It's a very good book. Bank did nothing but research Microsoft for about 5 years, and it shows.

If you actually read the book, instead of quite literally judging it by its cover, you would find that Bank concludes that Gates & Co. still have a chance to fix Microsoft. Their chance is .NET.

Since the book was published a couple of years ago, Bank didn't get the chance to see the results of the .NET initiative.

#6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:30:15 AM
Haven't you guys heard?

Microsoft is a has been. Linux rules the day! Linux is everywhere! It's in the air, in your coffee, in your toilet water!

#7 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:17:01 AM
.NET is MS's destiny, that much is sure, but I'm still unclear as to how they've fumbled or somehow hosed themselves in any way shape or form. Sure, they managed to get themselves into a lot of trouble and not seize opportunities and such, but what company hasn't? And none of those follies were enough to destroy the company, so I fail to see the "fumbled" part.

#8 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:29:41 AM
READ THE DAMN BOOK!

Gates (and many others) did indeed fumble many things over the past few years. Just because you fumble something doesn't mean you can't recover.

Come on people! Keep up with your sports analogies.

#9 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:37:18 AM
I've read it as well (about 1.5 yrs ago) thanks to RMD's recommendation.

How did they fumble? Well, the anti-trust case was a botch job. After delivering a non-working Windows to comply with Judge Jackson's order, they lost credibility. Bill's less than straight-forward answers in his deposition also hurt credibility. There is a reason that Jackson thought Bill was a little Napolean. The fact that Jackson expressed those views while a sitting judge was a breech of judicial conduct, but his reaons for having those views are rather sound.

How else? They lost many of their top executives (even Adam Bosworth, who is arguably responsible for Microsoft's adoption of XML.), because of Bill's management style. Don't think that Microsoft itself hasn't realized they needed to change. Bill stepped down as CEO in 2000, in part to separate himself from the role of supreme commander of the army. Now, it's more the Bill and Steve Show than just the Bill Show. Even now, Ballmer often talks about the need the company has to reform itself in its internal policies, dealings with partners, and dealings with competitors.

Fumble doesn't imply they lost the game. It implies they made some mistakes. The test of the company is whether they've learned from their mistakes and how the correct them. Parker, if you don't think they did a bit of fumbling, take a look at their stock after Jackson's ruling in April 2000. Had the been a bit nicer in court, they likely would have given up a few yards, but not given a up a touchdown or two to their opponents.

spoiler, if such a book can have such a thing
Bank concludes by saying:

Gates has been dealt a strong hand. He's young, visionary, and intellectually honest. He can indeed scale, can indeed grow. He can certainly track the inevitable. I say he shoots the moon. I say Gates rises to the new challenge. I say he goes out a winner.
(p 262)

#10 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:42:07 AM
Another book I recommend is World War 3.0 (make sure to get the latest edition) by Ken Auletta.

While I'm writing again, here are a few more thoughts on things Microsoft fumbled - Cairo, uniting the 9x and NT code bases with Windows 2000 (this is also arguably Cairo), the rollout of the .NET initiative (notice that most of the stuff with .NET in the name doesn't have .NET in the name anymore?), Hailstorm, software management, etc.

Yes, every company has ups and downs, blah, blah, blah. The point is that Microsoft never has been, still isn't, and never will be a perfect company. This book simply explains many of the mistakes they made in the past.

#11 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:44:45 AM
Statement: "How Gates fumbled the future of Microsoft"

I don't need to read the book to address this statement. The statement stands on its own.

The implication is, of course, that the future of MS is unstable, rocky, and not clear.

I completely disagree with this. MS has strong, if not absolute market share, they have $46-some-odd billion in the bank, they have a multitude of strong product offerings, they have a huge braintrust of brilliant employees and keep the mostly happy, etc.

Yes, MS has tripped and stumbled along the way, but "fumble" is hardly a word I would use to describe any of that.

Yes, the DOJ thing was a nightmare, but at no time was there really any doubt that MS would come out looking fairly good, even if they were broken up. What was the DOJ going to do? Shut down MS and take away Windows? They aren't going to destroy the economy like that.

"fumble the future" is a bad choice of words and hardly describes where MS is at.

#12 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:50:56 AM
#13: MS has fumbled many things, I'm certainly not arguing that.

However, the statement is "fumbled the future". Fumbling Cairo, the DOJ case, .NET, etc are different than the entire future of MS.

Do you have doubt whether MS will be around or viable in 2-3 years? 5 years? I don't really have much doubt. I think they will continue to be a dominant player in most markets they exist in currently and will become major players in new and different markets in those 5 years.

So again, I fail to see how MS has fumbled their FUTURE.

#13 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:56:27 AM
daz, as a programmer you should be trained to think in terms of context. Did you do that here?

When was this book published? 2001.
If the book was published in 2001, when was it likely written? 1999-2000.
What was Microsoft facing in that timeframe? The verdict that it was a monopoly. A breakup order. Hundreds of resultant private anti-trust cases potentially costing multiple billions of dollars.
Is this view of the future (remember context) "unstable, rocky, and not clear" ? Yes.

Is Microsoft's future close to stable, smooth, and clear now? No.
What does it face now? Judge Kolar-Kotely's approved settlement being overturned and the company being broken up, up to a 3 billion dollar fine from the EU, 1 Billion plus in damages to Sun Micrososystems, etc, etc. And we haven't even looked at the competitive landscape, we've only looked at the legal landscape.

For the record, if you haven't read the book, and you don't know as much about Microsoft as does David Bank (just a hunch, I'll bet you don't), then you aren't all too qualified to judge whether it is a good title or not.

Just thinking of this from a logical perspective...
When you read a proof, do you only read the conclusion? No.
Do you read the steps of the proof? Yes.
Is it possible to disprove a proof without reading/understanding/debunking the steps of the proof? No. From a logical persepctive, the proof is still sound, and the conclusion still holds.

#14 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:05:14 PM
#15 You're arguing foolishly, so I won't respond to you after this post.

Tell me something, does the present affect the future? Yes.
Can any point in time affect future points in time? Yes.
Does a part of a system affect the entire system? Yes.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that any failure Microsoft has ever had did have an effect on its future. Whether thoses failures were mitigated is another issue.

As for why you still fail to see how Microsoft fumbled its future, you'd have to actually read the book. Until you've done that, it's useless to talk to you on this subject.

#15 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:09:53 PM
When was this book published? 2001.

Then why are we even talking about it now?

Is Microsoft's future close to stable, smooth, and clear now? No.
What does it face now? Judge Kolar-Kotely's approved settlement being overturned and the company being broken up, up to a 3 billion dollar fine from the EU, 1 Billion plus in damages to Sun Micrososystems, etc, etc. And we haven't even looked at the competitive landscape, we've only looked at the legal landscape.


I don't see $4billion in fines/fees/settlements as particularly devistating to MS in the future considering they have $46B or so in the bank.

I would say their future is stable, mostly smooth with a few potholes. No one's future is clear, so I fail to see why MS is any different in this regard. However, it's pretty certain that they won't cease to exist in the next couple years or for the near forseeable future.

For the record, if you haven't read the book, and you don't know as much about Microsoft as does David Bank (just a hunch, I'll bet you don't), then you aren't all too qualified to judge whether it is a good title or not.

Who cares what he thinks or knows? I really don't. All I need to know is MS' product offerings, their market share, their strategies, and their earnings reports. That's all that really matters and all of those things are bright and rosey.

Whether this guy wants to pick apart a bunch of small mistakes 5 years ago is of no relevance to MS' future. So basically, making a statement about MS fumbling their future is pretty ignorant or sensationalistic; probably both.


Just thinking of this from a logical perspective...
When you read a proof, do you only read the conclusion? No.


I'm not doing this here. I don't need or even want to read his conjecture that you attempt to call "proof" because the proof is readily available to everyone. Contrary to popular belief, I have not, in fact, been living in a complete vacuum for the past 10 years. I have seen what MS has done, have followed them closely from a product and business perspective and am quite aware of how their operations are run and what their future strategies are and how likely they are to succeed.

If this guy wants to write a sensationalistic book that picks apart the scraps left by MS, good for him, but please don't insult us by claiming it's "proof".


Do you read the steps of the proof? Yes.


And indeed I lived through them. I'm quite aware of the situation as described before.


Is it possible to disprove a proof without reading/understanding/debunking the steps of the proof? No. From a logical persepctive, the proof is still sound, and the conclusion still holds.


If I tell you something that is so obviously and completely false and moronic, but i provide 600 pages of proof, do you need to read 600 pages of proof to tell me I'm wrong?

(600 pages.........
........
.......
.......)
And thus, white rabbits are actually pink.

"Um... no. white rabbits are white rabbits, you dolt!"

"And thus, MS has fumbled it's future"

"Um... no. MS has not fumbled it's future, you dolt!"

#16 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:16:08 PM
#15 You're arguing foolishly, so I won't respond to you after this post.

Ah yeah, the "You're an idiot! lalala defense"


Tell me something, does the present affect the future? Yes.
Can any point in time affect future points in time? Yes.
Does a part of a system affect the entire system? Yes.


Now you're just splitting hairs. This guy wrote a sensationalistic book about how the world is coming to an end. It's all to common in our age Tragedy Television (tm).

Regardless of how he tries to spin it or what not, it's quite an ignorant thing to say that MS has fumbled it's future. MS has obviously not done that and things are on quite a good track. .NET is progressing better than could be hoped, MS is coming out with some really kick-ass and professional products. They've taken the security problem by the horns and have it locked in nicely, their future OSes (their main bread and butter) have some revolutionary new features which will keep revenue moving steadily. They're branching out into different markets and doing quite nicely (XBox is doing quite well despite all the death warrants and naysayers like this guy, for example). Their future is quite bright and though yes, they face challenges and future mistakes, like anyone, their future is hardly "fumbled".


I think it is reasonable to conclude that any failure Microsoft has ever had did have an effect on its future. Whether thoses failures were mitigated is another issue.


Shall we discuss the intricite physics that keep the hole in a sewing needle from collapsing as well? You're arguing pendantic points to back up this guy's ludicrous statements. Why? He's a sensastionalistic writer, why defend him? It's just like all the Hate Clinton(tm) and Hate Bush(tm) books that come out... about how one or the other completely destroyed our nation and the world will come to a firey nuclear end Any Day now(tm)


As for why you still fail to see how Microsoft fumbled its future, you'd have to actually read the book. Until you've done that, it's useless to talk to you on this subject.


lol, "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

#17 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:18:04 PM
blue, I can see why arguing with daz bugs you. I hope I never "reason" as he does. Feel free to alert me if I do.

#18 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:22:02 PM
blue, I can see why arguing with daz bugs you. I hope I never "reason" as he does. Feel free to alert me if I do.

lol, what a whiner. If you're confronted with too much logic, just plug your ears and try to insult me in third person as though I'm not here.

Tell me Bob, why do you defend the book when it asserts an obviously sensationalistic and salactious claim?

This book is just like all the Hate Bush and Hate Clinton books out where they talk about how one or the other president has ruined the future of America and we'll all die.

These books are all cookie-cutter. Just replace "Gates" with "Clinton" or "Bush" and "Microsoft" with "America".

This post was edited by daz on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 at 12:22.

#19 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:39:40 PM
Lest anyone be led astray by the sound and fury surrounding this book, be assured that the tales told by those who have not read it are told by idiots and signify nothing.

The book is well documented - internal email, court transcripts, personal interviews, etc.
The book is anything but sensational.
The book was written during the midst of the anti-trust case when Microsoft's position was not the same as its current position.
This book is anything but an ABM, I-Hate-Bill, or I-Hate-Microsoft book. Bank even feels, as I quoted above, that Bill would come out a winner. Amusingly, if from today's perspective Microsoft is now on a rosy path, that would mean that Bank was right. So much for a the-sky-is-falling book.

Give ActiveWin a little donation, but going to Amazon using the link above (ya'll are affiliates or whatever, right?) and buying the book. At the very least, read the portion of the book amazon makes available - the reviews and cover - http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743203151/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8165225-2276817#reader-page

#20 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:52:28 PM
Lest anyone be insulted by BobSmith's childish rantings and refusal to listen to simple logic, please be reminded that the title is merely sensationalistic in order to pump up sales of the book and it is not backed up by any common logic.

The book was written 2 years ago and already the sensastionalistic tagline is proven wrong. MS's future is not fumbled and is as bright as ever. I think most reasonble (i.e. not BobSmith) would agree that MS's future is anything but fumbled and unclear.

Thus, the book may be interesting and certainly worth reading, but hardly manifest or proven correct by the future which we're now witnessing.

Tell us BobSmith, is MS's future fumbled as this 2001 book predicted?

Your lack of understanding of our simple argument that MS's future is anything but fumbled is quite amusing.

#21 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 01:34:51 PM
Anybody else find it funny that everybody is disagreeing with the only two people who have actually read the book?

#22 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 02:23:22 PM
I found it funny. I also found my Shakespearean allusion slightly creative, but, hey, it's obvious I don't see eye to eye with everyone on this board.

Maybe some others are a bit better at blackbox testing than I am.

#23 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 02:38:10 PM
I'm still not sure how reading any book makes "Microsoft fumbled their future" any less bogus.

I don't need to read Principalia to tell you that some of Sir Issac Newton's theories were wrong. I'm certainly not smarter than Issac Newton, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that some of his theories are wrong.

But of course, I didn't read his book, so of course, all of Issac Newton's theories are 100% correct.

Likewise, even though this guy predicted that MS fumbled their future in 2001 and that it's obviously not the case and MS's bright future is manifest now, I'm still wrong and MS's future is fumbled and they're really out of business because I didn't read this book.

The MS you read about in these stories is a paradoxical phantom company that exists in a parallel universe because the REAL Microsoft is done for, their future fumbled because Banks said so.

#24 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 02:55:30 PM
Daz, the only reason you know some of Newton's theories are wrong is because people like Einstien, Bohr, and Feynman told you they were wrong. I doubt you, or anybody else on these boards, has the intellect to come to those conclusions on our own.

The fact of the matter is, your conclusions are based quite literally on the cover of the book. Instead of ranting, try reading.

This post was edited by RMD on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 at 14:57.

#25 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 03:00:31 PM
Friends, ActiveWhiners, netizens, lend me your eyes;
I come to bury BobSmith, not to praise him.
The foolishness that men do lives after them;
The wisdom is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with BobSmith. The noble daz
Hath told you BobSmith was a moron:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath BobSmith answer'd it.
Here, under leave of daz and the rest—
For daz is an intelligent man;
So are they all, all intelligent men—
Come I to speak in BobSmith’s funeral.
He was my friend, logical and just to me:
But daz says he was a moron;
And daz is an intelligent man.
He hath brought much intelligence to the website
Which pearls did the ignorant minds fill:
Did this in BobSmith seem moronic?
When that the fools have cried, BobSmith hath taught:
A moron should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet daz says he was a moron;
And daz is an intelligent man.
You all did see that in this thread
He thrice proved he was correct,
Which daz did thrice deny: was this a moron?
Yet daz says he was a moron;
And, sure, he is an intelligent man.
I speak not to disprove what daz spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O logic! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with BobSmith,
And I must pause till it come back to me.


I'd have honored you, RMD, but your name has one too many syllables. :-)

#26 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 03:22:47 PM
"If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America. . . They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. . . When liberals look back on history, we see things we're very proud of. And we also see some things, which might have seemed like good ideas at the time, but turned out to be mistakes. And some things we did, well, they were just bad. That doesn't keep us from loving our country - it's part of loving our country. It's called honesty. What do you think is more important to a loving relationship: honesty or lies?"

-Al Franken
LIES And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

#27 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 03:27:49 PM
Without stating my thoughts one which side, liberal or conservative, falls into which category, I say, "Here, here!" to the sentiment of what it means to love.

#28 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 03:29:01 PM
To be honest, some people get caught up in the whole argument... see the constant irrational praising of mommy, and respond only with criticism.

I've come to the conclusion in recent years that the differentiating factor between liberals and conservatives, or democrats and republcans, is not policy or other esoteric arguments.

It instead all boils down to personality.

It's not a pure conclusion, but it's a piece of the puzzle and you see this in the way daz and parker make their arguments.

This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 at 15:39.

#29 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 05:53:17 PM
I don't really care about the book. Read it or not. In fact, I'm sure it's probably a really good book with plenty of facts and salatious details.

My point was just that the tagline was sensationalistic and is not true. BobSmith seems to want to ignore that fact and post random poems and other BS ignoring the truth and logic.

And of course, for some reason, blue has to bring in politics and even worse than that, quote the drunkard and assaulter Al Fraken.

Not to mention that Franken is a complete idiot and that he's completely wrong. Liberals distort the truth and obscure specific facts, especially when they might put conservatism and Republicans in a good light.

Seriously, find any 5th grade public school history book in California and see how many pages are dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. In some books, he gets LESS THAN A PAGE! The rest of the book is dedicated to the history of Native Americans, or a stellar and flattering review of how well Communism worked int he Soviet Union before the evil and barbaric Reagan with his "Freedom" came and broke it all down. It's quite sad, really.

Public schools today spend more time making students feel better than teaching them. Something like 2 or 3 out of every 5 public school high school senior has problems reading and something like 1/5 can't read at all.

Perochial schools are slightly better, but they're trying to compete with the feel-goodness of the public schools so the parents don't think that the teachers are "mean".

And god forbid the parents even actually do anything. They're too busy working 2 jobs to pay for the ridiculous taxes hoisted upon us from the Democrats.

#30 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 06:10:04 PM
daz - "Seriously, find any 5th grade public school history book in California and see how many pages are dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. In some books, he gets LESS THAN A PAGE! The rest of the book is dedicated to the history of Native Americans, or a stellar and flattering review of how well Communism worked int he Soviet Union before the evil and barbaric Reagan with his "Freedom" came and broke it all down. It's quite sad, really. "

Now that wasn't the case when I took US History in Minnesota's school system. I'm curious how you know this when you already admit to having no interest in reading books. Do you have a source for this claim?

You claim the title of this book is sensationlistic, but then you make a sensationalist claim based on little facts yourself. I find that interesting as well.

"Something like 2 or 3 out of every 5 public school high school senior has problems reading and something like 1/5 can't read at all. "

Maybe in Texas or Alabama, but not in Minnesota. Do you have a source for this one?

"And god forbid the parents even actually do anything. They're too busy working 2 jobs to pay for the ridiculous taxes hoisted upon us from the Democrats. "

Now that's an interesting statement. Are you talking about the income taxes that Democrats favor or the property and sales taxes that Republicans favor? The progressive Democrat taxes would likely not impact someone who was in a position of working 2 jobs, as the tax rates at the lower income levels are slight.

However the regressive property and consumption taxes that Republicans favor would directly impact someone working 2 minimum wage jobs.

Then on the whole taxation thing, I'm still puzzled by the attitude that massive deficits are better than reasonable spending and taxation policies.

No, I was right in my initial assessment, the differences have nothing to do with policies, it's all about personality.

daz just thinks he has to be right all the time, and he's willing to make shit up if that's what it takes. And that, my friends, was the subject of Al Franken's book on "Lies and the lying liars that tell them."


This post was edited by sodablue on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 at 18:14.

#31 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 06:56:42 PM
daz: "Something like 2 or 3 out of every 5 public school high school senior has problems reading and something like 1/5 can't read at all. "

sodablue: Maybe in Texas or Alabama, but not in Minnesota.


I do tire of people taking digs at Texas...

If the Minnesotans are so damn smart (well, at least literate), then why do they have so many taxes. (I guess they're paying for that slight literacy edge with a Texas size portion of taxes.)

Minnesota (as of January 1, 2002)
Corporate Income Tax: 9.8%
Individual Income Tax: 5.35% to 7.85%
Sales Tax: 6.5%
Property Tax per $100: 1.25

Texas (as of December 3, 2003)
Corporate Income Tax: None
Individual Income Tax: None
Sales Tax: 6.25%
Property Tax per $100: 0.95

And, by the way, the following states all performed worse than Texas in the most recent reading tests (http://nces.ed.gov):

Percentage of students at or above Proficient in reading, grade 8 public schools (2003):
New Mexico
Mississippi
Nevada
Alabama
California
Hawaii
Louisiana
South Carolina
Arizona
West Virginia

Average reading scale scores, grade 8 public schools (2003):
District of Columbia
California
Hawaii
Nevada
New Mexico
Alabama
Louisiana
Arizona
Mississippi
Alaska
Florida
Arkansas
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee

#32 By 116 (24.173.79.86) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 09:12:32 PM
Ummm Blue... We can read "good" in Texas thank you very much. Our higher education institutions are much more prestigious than those from Minnesota... I agree with you pretty much but lets get rid of the jabs on us good mannered simple country folk. Make fun of british people... Much easier target. Here I will start. At least we can brush our teeth unlike those unclean Brits!

As for the book, I'll prolly read it after it has been touted so highly from RMD, Bob, and Soda. Any others that I should add to my reading pile?

Peace,
RA

#33 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 09:43:00 PM
World War 3.0 by Ken Auletta. It's a detailed account of the US anti-trust case.

#34 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:26:58 PM
ch - "If the Minnesotans are so damn smart (well, at least literate), then why do they have so many taxes."

To pay for the schools, roads and other infrastructure.

Here's another interesting statistic for ya...
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/SPINewsRelease.htm

Minnesota has the 7th highest per capita income in the nation.

Who has the lowest? Oh yeah, the same states who have low taxes and refuse to spend money on schools, roads and infrastructure.

Fascinating, ain't it?

#35 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:56:05 PM
RedAvenger - "We can read "good" in Texas thank you very much. Our higher education institutions are much more prestigious than those from Minnesota... "

I was talking about the public elementary and secondary school systems, in response to daz's ridiculous comment.

"Make fun of british people... Much easier target."

Naw, I like the Brits. Can we make fun of California? They've got high tax rates and sucky schools.

#36 By 13030 (24.1.91.102) at Wednesday, December 03, 2003 11:51:04 PM
sodablue: Minnesota has the 7th highest per capita income in the nation.

Who has the lowest? Oh yeah, the same states who have low taxes and refuse to spend money on schools, roads and infrastructure.


It seems excessive taxation is related to these things more than per capita income. ;-)

Texas ranks third in Gross State Product and 16th in GSP per capita (same as Minnesota).

BTW, our roads here are the best I've driven or had any out-of-state visitors talk about. (And just consider the amount of area the roads have to cover.)

#37 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:28:35 AM
Once again Sodablue defends against obvious facts. Typical liberal, refusing to admit that any major government institution could possibly be wrong. After all, anything that the government does is perfect and our ancient "democracy"/"republic" captialism system is so outdated and we should go towards the Socialist Utopia as proclaimed by Karl Marx (may god bless him and keep him).

http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=1629§ionID=35&NEWSYEAR=2003

(quoting the NEAP 2003 Education Report, a government funded anual evaluation of the public school system)

http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=1629§ionID=35&NEWSYEAR=2003

The public school system purposely keeps Black students down, thus fostering the environment where Liberals can continue to feed lies to uneducated Blacks and keep them voting Liberal. Because by and large, the majority of African Americans with college degrees or higher are conservative.

If you want an example of how liberals/Democrats get scared when they see an educated African American (heretofore AA for brevity) conservative, just see how they treat them:
a.) Clarence Thomas
b.) Colon Powell
c.) Condoleeza Rice
d.) Numerous AA Bush judicial nominees

And the list goes on

Education Secretary Rod Paige said that the achievement gap is starting to close; in three years, the proportion of black fourth graders reaching the basic level in mathematics rose from 36 to 54% nationwide. The proportion of Hispanic students reaching the basic level in fourth grade math rose from 42 to 62% in three years. While still not proficient, these numbers give cause for optimism. But there is still an approximate 30-point difference in average scores between blacks and whites, a gap which has not budged since 1992, in both grades 4 and 8.

#38 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:29:30 AM
(continued)


So you see, under Bush, the education of minorities is doing better. Bush's education programs are benefiting inner-city schools and minorities. They're not being oppressed by the soft-racism of liberals. "No Child Left Behind Act" is working.

Here's a state-by-state breakdown:
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/naep2003.pdf

We see that Texas is about in line with the rest of the country, including Vermant, Howard The Dean's state.

So when students are taught actual lessons, and tested on them, and the results are verified by a state-wide independent test and teachers are forced to account for what they're teaching, results show.

When the NEA has the run of the show and they serve the interests of protecting teacher job security and promoting their liberal socialist agenda and spend more time teaching 4th graders about condoms and the mechanics of homosexual sex than about READING or WRITING or MATH!

The state of our national schools is abysmal. It's either a liberal indoctrination ground like we have here in Austin, or it's a rich elite school that isn't half bad, but you have to pay extra to go there (huge property taxes, etc).

The liberal solution to education, like anything, is tax the heck out of the middle class and throw more money at it. They've been throwing money like crazy at it. Billions and billions and literacy rates continue to dwindle. Only when you take a conservative tough-love approach do you actually get any type of results. But the system is fundamentally flawed because it's run by the federal government. Nothing the feds do is ever successful.

What Soda either realizes and chooses to hide, or fails to realize (a public skrool education?) is that raising taxes more and more and killing off of the middle class doesn't help anyone but the fat-cat politicians and the non-producers. What you eventually do is kill off the middle class and create a two-caste society in which the poor will eventually overtake the rich and then you'll have... you guessed it! Communism which is always the logical conclusion to any liberal policy focus.


#39 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:35:28 AM
Sorry one more thing... so you see, according to the 2003 national average (which is better than most previous years, thanks to Bush, as detailed above):

28% of 8th graders are functionality illiterate or cannot read at a BASIC level near their grade level.

That's greater than 1/4th. I said 1/5th, so I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, it seems. And remember, it was worse than this in 2000!

Only 72% are able to read at a BASIC level or better.

So 68% are BASIC or lower (less than PROFICIENT or where they SHOULD be at that level).

That's around... what? 2/3rds? I said what... 2 or 3 out of 5? 3 /5 = 60%. 2/3 = 66%. Again, I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, Soda, when confronted with facts will probably come back with some ad-hominem about how I'm just a whacko-right-winger and he's a "centrist" and believes that we should all pay more taxes and give all our rights to the government and take more entitlement handouts (which is essentially left-wing view, but he'll never admit it)

#40 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:05:36 AM
All liberals are racist!

All conservatives are religious nuts!

All liberals hate America!

All conservatives are greedy scum!

All [insert group here] are [insert idiotic statement here]!

Get a grip people.

#41 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 01:33:21 PM
daz - "Of course, Soda, when confronted with facts will probably come back with some ad-hominem about how I'm just a whacko-right-winger and he's a "centrist" and believes that we should all pay more taxes and give all our rights to the government and take more entitlement handouts (which is essentially left-wing view, but he'll never admit it) "

LOL!

There's something just strangely bizarre about a man defending an administration which has increased the size and scope of Federal Government to the largest degree seen in this nation in over 30 years.

And at the same time accuses anybody who questions him of supporting big government.

It seems that your perception and reality are on two different cosmic planes of existence.

#42 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 03:16:34 PM
#52 - War is expensive.

Apparently it's expensive both in terms of money and freedom, because the current administration loves taking both.

#43 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 04:34:53 PM
parker - "War is expensive."

War only accounts for 20% of the record increases.

"The good news is that the economy is growing like crazy."

But who benefits if we aren't also creating jobs?

RMD - "Apparently it's expensive both in terms of money and freedom, because the current administration loves taking both. "

Yep, that's the problem with this administration. They are liberal in all the wrong ways.

BTW, if you want to read a different perspective on politics, check out the paleo-Conservative magazine Chronicles... http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org

I don't agree with them, but it's interesting to see the old conservatives whining about how the neo-conservatives have taken all the worst aspects of liberals and conservatives and applied them in a desperate grasp for power.

#45 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 05:09:00 PM
Oh, I forgot one...

As for "taking money", isn't it the Democratic plan to repeal the tax cuts (when this administration gave people their money back) thereby taking away money?

First of all, I understand the need for taxes. I have no problem with paying them. We pay the lowest tax rate of any industrialized nation.

My comment about Bush taking money is not one intended to reflect an anti-tax stance. It's intended to reflect my anti-unilaterialism. This war wouldn't be so expensive if Bush hadn't single handedly destroyed foreign policy for the next 20 years. The man, and his administration, are completely incompetent.

Bush is a liar, a fool, and has damaged this country for a generation to come.

#46 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:53:53 PM
RMD, have you forgotten your commandments again?

Thou shalt not diss Bush. Bush is perfect, therefore, if thou dost diss Bush, thou art a liar.

#48 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at Friday, December 05, 2003 09:32:57 AM
I really feel sorry for you, Parker.

If your attitude didn't affect other people, it might actually be funny. But instead, it's scary.

You are so completely blind to the world around you.

#49 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Friday, December 05, 2003 10:22:39 AM
Locke,

Here, here!

#50 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Friday, December 05, 2003 02:28:40 PM
Hmm, this there's a typo there. It's supposed to read:

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of hero worship in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

It seems you're infected, parker. A healthy dose of reality should clear it up though. Perhaps that'll come for you next November when the American people don't re-elect your god. I hope it comes sooner, but I'm not holding my breath.

#51 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Friday, December 05, 2003 02:30:13 PM
Would parker distort reality and twist a man's words to suit his own ends? Yes! Now that is dangerous!.

#52 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Friday, December 05, 2003 10:15:03 PM
lol, when did I excuse Howard Dean? Oh yeah, I didn't. The amusing thing here is that you paint me in your mind to be some awful liberal. That's my assumption anyway. The reality is, I'm probably just as conservative as you, if not more so. I just happen to think Mr. Bush is a liar, a deciever, and a con artist.

That doesn't mean I condone Japanese relocation camps. That doesn't mean I condone 9/11. That doesn't mean I condone <insert bad thing here>. It means I think Mr. Bush is a liar, a deciever, and a con artist. I thought the same of Clinton.

You need to see people for who they are, parker, and stop painting them into stereotypes. Surprise, surprise, but RMD, Locke, and I don't seem to fit into any of the molds you've tried to contort us into.

#53 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at Saturday, December 06, 2003 01:18:06 AM
Great ad hominem, parker.

#54 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at Saturday, December 06, 2003 01:32:44 AM
Well said, Locke.

Your namesake would be proud.



 

  *  
  *   *
 
replica watches